Walden UniversityScholarWorks

Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral StudiesCollection

2015

Factors That Motivate Millennial Public Servants inthe WorkplaceLisa Maria MalloryWalden University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations

Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, and theManagement Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, pleasecontact ScholarWorks@waldenu.edu.

Walden University

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences

This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by

Lisa Mallory

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made.

Review Committee Dr. Ernesto Escobedo, Committee Chairperson,

Public Policy and Administration Faculty

Dr. Gema Hernandez, Committee Member, Public Policy and Administration Faculty

Dr. Cassandra Caldwell, University Reviewer,

Public Policy and Administration Faculty

Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.D.

Walden University 2015

Abstract

Factors That Motivate Millennial Public Servants in the Workplace

by

Lisa María Mallory

MBA, George Washington University, 1993

BS, University of Maryland University College, 1987

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Public Policy and Administration

Walden University

November 2015

Abstract

There is an abundance of scholarly literature examining the Millennial generation’s

characteristics and their uniqueness in the workforce, but few studies have examined the

lived experiences of Millennials and what motivates them in the public sector workplace.

Given the size of the Millennial cohort, the largest and most educated in history, this

generation of public servants merits more research. This phenomenological study sought

to determine what factors motivate Millennial public sector workers through a criterion

sample of 20 District of Columbia government employees. Data obtained from interviews

were analyzed through use of NVivo10 allowing for the identification of themes, findings

and recommendations for further studies. Findings revealed that these 20 workers were

motivated by the same factors that impact other generations, as Herzberg delineated in his

2-factor theory. Despite these similarities, participants felt they were unique and not

understood by the generations of workers that precede them. The themes obtained from

this study can inform public administrators seeking to increase workforce collaboration

and productivity and underscores the need for further scholarly attention. Millennial

public servants need to feel engaged through increased responsibility, recognition, and

the nature of work, as they will soon comprise 1/3rd of the workforce. These findings

have implications for social change by educating public administrators and Millennials’

coworkers to capitalize on the younger workers’ ability to contribute to the overall

productivity and competitiveness of government.

Factors That Motivate Millennial Public Servants in the Workplace

by

Lisa María Mallory

MBA, George Washington University, 1993

BS, University of Maryland University College, 1987

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Public Policy and Administration

Walden University

November 2015

Dedication

This accomplishment would not have been possible without the love, care, support

and nudging of my wonderful circle of family and friends. In particular I want to thank all

of my daughters and grandchildren, but particularly Alana Jean and Kayla María for

pushing me forward daily as only 12 year-olds can. To Yul, thank you for caring for all of

us through the ups and downs. And to my mother, Evangelina Renovales, who told me at

an early age that the years will pass anyway, and quickly, so I should not wait until the

perfect time. I dedicate this work and my future contributions to all of you.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Ernesto Escobedo who served as Committee Chair and

worked with me through the years on getting to the finish line. Also, I truly appreciate

the thoughtfulness and input of the Methodologist for this work, Dr. Gema Hernandez

and the URR support of Dr. Cassandra Caldwell. Dr. Tanya Settles provided last minute

support that was timely and very helpful. Your encouragement and guidance were

invaluable and are much appreciated.

i

Table of Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................v

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................1

Background ....................................................................................................................4

Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................................6

Purpose and Objectives of the Study .............................................................................7

Research Questions ........................................................................................................7

Theoretical Foundation ..................................................................................................8

Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................9

Definitions....................................................................................................................11

Assumptions .................................................................................................................13

Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................14

Limitations ...................................................................................................................15

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................17

Summary ......................................................................................................................18

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................20

Introduction ..................................................................................................................20

Literature Search Strategy............................................................................................22

Theoretical Foundation ................................................................................................23

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................25

ii

Overview of Millennials ..............................................................................................27

Characteristics of Millennials ............................................................................... 30

Millennials in the Workplace ................................................................................ 34

Leading Millennials in the Workplace .................................................................. 37

Four Generations in the Workplace ...................................................................... 39

Gen X in the Workplace ....................................................................................... 44

Baby Boomers in the Workplace .......................................................................... 45

Traditionals in the Workplace ............................................................................... 47

Theories of Motivation ................................................................................................48

Summary and Conclusions ..........................................................................................53

Chapter 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................55

Introduction ..................................................................................................................55

Research Design Rationale ..........................................................................................56

Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................57

Methodology ................................................................................................................59

Research Design...........................................................................................................60

Issues of Trustworthiness .............................................................................................65

Summary ......................................................................................................................67

Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................68

Introduction ..................................................................................................................68

Pilot Study ....................................................................................................................69

Setting ........................................................................................................................70

iii

Demographics ..............................................................................................................71

Data Collection ............................................................................................................72

Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................74

Research Question 1: Based on Herzberg’s two-factor research and theory,

what positively and negatively motivates the Millennial public

servant? ..................................................................................................... 78

Research Question 2: Are there specific strategies Millennial public

servants can recommend to positively motivate and retain them? ........... 95

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................98

Introduction ..................................................................................................................98

Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................106

Recommendations ......................................................................................................108

Reflections of Researcher ..........................................................................................111

References ........................................................................................................................113

Appendix A: Introductory E-mail ....................................................................................124

Appendix B: Introductory Phone Call .............................................................................125

Appendix C: Script of Phone Call Requesting Participation in Interview.......................126

Appendix D: Interview Protocol ......................................................................................127

iv

List of Tables

Table 1 Three Most Important Factors in Choosing a Company..................................... 24 Table 2 Required Competencies to Effectively Lead Millennials ................................... 38 Table 3 Perspectives of Four Generations in the Workplace ........................................... 40 Table 4 Worldview of Four Generations ......................................................................... 42 Table 5 Demographics of Study Participants................................................................... 72 Table 6 Motivators ........................................................................................................... 75 Table 7 Hygiene Factors .................................................................................................. 76 Table 8 Summary of State of Interpersonal Relationships .............................................. 90 Table 9 Themes .............................................................................................................. 102

v

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................26

Figure 2. A Sample of Timefames Used to Define Millennials ........................................29

Figure 3. Self-Ascribed Characteristics of Millennials......................................................74

Figure 4. Herzberg’s two-factor Theory ............................................................................75

Figure 5. Herzberg’s (1974) “classic” profile of factors in an prganization ....................101

1

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

Millennials, known by many other names including Generation Y, began entering

the workforce over the past decade and their arrival has been met with mixed feelings by

their coworkers. A plethora of research, including from the White House’s Council of

Economic Advisers (2014), described the characteristics of this generation to include

being the most highly educated generation in recent history, technologically savvy, open

to diversity, civic minded, and effective multitaskers (Neilsen Company, 2014; Pew

Research Center, 2014, 2015). Some of the characteristics attributed to this generation are

not so positive, including having a sense of entitlement, demanding work-life balance,

and requiring constant feedback and praise (Shragay & Tziner, 2011). Winograd and Hais

(2014) declared that they are “a cohort whose dominating presence will make its

behaviors the major motif of American life in the next decade” having received more

attention from think tanks, scholars and research organizations than any other generation

in recent history (pp. 2-3).

The U.S. Census Bureau (2015) estimated Millennials to be over 83.1 million

individuals worldwide, and one third of the United States’ population, making them the

largest generational cohort in history. One of 3 adult Americans will be Millennials by

2020, and by 2025 they have been estimated to comprise over 75% of the workforce

(Winograd & Hais, 2014, p. 2). The contrasting, yet distinct, descriptors and levels of

educational attainment could uniquely position Millennials in the workplace given more

virtual, collaborative, technologically driven environments, diminishing resources and

2

globalized context (Pew Research Center, 2014). This cohort of individuals could be

capable of increasing competitiveness and efficiency should their characteristics be the

most appropriate for the type of work that must be done now and in the near future. But

are these workers any different than their predecessors? “The distinctive and widely

shared attitudes and beliefs of this generation will slowly, but surely, reshape

corporations in its image and end the confrontational and bottom-line oriented world that

Boomers and Gen-Xers have created” (Winograd & Hais, 2014, p. 5).

While there has been no lack of research on Millennials in the private sector

workplace, there have been few studies that addressed the Millennial public employee

and no studies that examined what factors motivate them both positively and negatively.

The present study examined these workers and what motivated them in the public sector

workplace by obtaining data from them directly. This large cohort of public sectors

workers should demand the attention of scholarly research, particularly because they will

disproportionately represent most government employees in the not too distant future.

The salient characteristics ascribed to Millennials in the literature appeared to be

compatible with the service orientations or “identities” Perry (1996) first elucidated in his

seminal research and process theory of public service. Perry and Wise’s (1990) earlier

work found that individuals with higher levels of public service motivation are attracted

to public sector employment and will perform at higher levels. While Perry and Wise

found that most Millennial public workers seemed to have a service orientation, whether

they are the ideal public servant is not clear. The Millennials that participated in the

present study had similar positive descriptors to those previous researchers had ascribed

3

to them in the literature. A 2013 study by the National Society of High School Scholars

surveyed Millennials and determined that two of their preferred employers were federal

agencies (Winograd & Hais, 2014, p. 7). The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s

leadership began to differentiate their recruitment strategies by focusing on this

generation and proclaiming that “hiring Millennials is critical to the future of

government” (Rein, 2014, p.1). State governments, such as West Virginia, perceived

future workforce shortages and have begun to aggressively pursue Millennial workers

(Cook, 2015).

Older workers in the federal government had been retained after an exodus of

over 239,881 between 2000 and 2004 because administrators believed a brain drain

would hamper operations while at the same time strengthening efforts to attract younger

workers and create viable, “desirable” opportunities (Bright, 2010, p. 1). Retaining more

seasoned employees, while attracting new entrants becomes a “conundrum” for public

administrators as the cohorts have differing work “preferences” in the public sector and

hence a “multifaceted understanding” of these differences is critical to ensure motivation

and the accomplishment of organizational goals (Bright, 2010, p. 11).

The present phenomenological study examined Millennials in the District of

Columbia government, a public sector employer that uniquely functions at the state and

local level, while in the close proximity of federal workers. The study sought to

determine the factors that positively and negatively motivate Millennial public servants

by obtaining data from them directly through the motivational theory introduced by

Herzberg (1966), the two-factor theory, also known as the motivation hygiene theory.

4

This theory, while developed over 50 years ago and tested and even re-examined for

applicability by Hyun and Oh (2011), continued to provide a useful and relevant tool to

investigate job satisfaction (p. 101).

Background

The economic crisis in the United States and worldwide introduced new dynamics

into the workplace. Pump (2012) described the state of America’s “inability to effectively

deal with the myriad of problems” (p. 27) that led to the downgrade of U.S. debt

precipitated by the current financial crisis. What Pump called “gridlock and inertia” in the

U.S. economy and government had significant impact on the country’s ability to recover

quickly from the “Great Recession” (p. 27).

Following the impact of the global financial crisis of 2007 and to this date,

economists postulated that what had in the past been seen as abnormal, “cyclical,” or

temporary would now become more common or even a permanent state (Romano,

Hanish, Phillips, & Waggoner, 2010, p. 70). As economic conditions change, so does the

composition of the workforce, which has slowed its growth, is aging, and has become

more diverse (Toossi, 2013). Older workers seek to stay employed longer as global

markets have delayed retirement plans resulting in the presence of up to four generations

in the workplace: Traditionals, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. According

to Toossi (2013), “With aging of the baby-boom generation, the older age cohorts are

expected to make up a much larger share of both the population and the labor force than

in the past” (p. 18). It would appear that the elongated tenure of workers has added

complexity to the workplace as each generation may have to be led somewhat differently

5

in accordance to the cohorts’ characteristics and expectations. The need for mutual

intergenerational understanding and collaboration is critical as these cohorts must work

together to achieve organizational results. In addition to the need to communicate

effectively with all workers, leaders must also determine what motivates these employees

to ensure maximum engagement and productivity.

Millennials, the latest arrivals in the workplace, are a large generation of workers

with new requirements and a different worldview. “They are coming of age in the most

dire economic climate since the Great Depression” (Nielsen Company, 2014, p. 2). While

their characteristics have been well documented in scholarly literature, their presence and

impact in the public sector workplace and factors that motivate them have not. Deal,

Altman, and Rogelberg (2010) stressed the need to explore the behaviors of the

Millennial generation at work and the implications for practitioners, particularly in the

context of working with other generations. Ferri-Reed (2014) found that employers have

to ensure their workplace is “millenialized” in order to “lift organizations to higher levels

of productivity, creativity, and effectiveness” (p. 13).

The inability of employers to offer the type of positive motivation that resonates

with Millennials may impact their ability to be engaged and even retained in the

workplace. These workers want flexibility in the workplace, leading edge technology,

and attention from their superiors and peers (Pew Research Center, 2015). Winograd and

Hais (2014) claimed that the companies that dedicate themselves to “changing the world”

will receive the loyalty of Millennials (p. 18).

6

The need for public administrators to address this area of research expediently to

ensure the engagement of this large, highly skilled generation compelled this

phenomenological research study, realizing the contribution to insight, theory, and

subsequent social change. The number of Millennials will continue to grow as older

workers begin to depart the workplace over the next decade. Given that the success of the

public sector is largely dependent on its employees, effective management of the

workforce is critical to ensure that all generations in the workplace, whether entering or

on their way out, feel they are valued contributors (Chen, Yang, & Chen, 2010). In

addition to providing data, insight, and potential recommendations for further research to

public administrators, the results of this study should prove useful for the examination of

future generations joining the workforce to ensure that the public sector is focused on

differentiating, recruiting, motivating, and retaining generations to come.

Statement of the Problem

Scholars do not yet clearly understand the factors that motivate Millennial public

sector workers, yet those workers are 24% of the U.S. population (Neilsen Company,

2014). Public administrators are facing the need to manage this latest cohort of

employees, yet it is not clear whether they need a differentiated strategy than other

generational cohorts. Complicating matters, “behavior among Millennials may not be

homogeneous due to the size of the range in their differences of lifestage” (Neilsen, 2014,

p. 4). It would appear that the increasing need for workers to be collaborative, flexible,

expert and adaptive to technology, and socially conscious, characteristics frequently used

to define Millennials, would uniquely position them in the public sector and be a

7

compelling argument to ensure their retention. However, whether these are “myths” or

the reality is worthy of examination (Johnson Controls, 2010; Neilsen Company, 2014).

This study examined factors that motivate Millennial public sector workers to provide

insight into whether they require differentiated strategies to ensure job satisfaction.

The gap in the literature on Millennial public workers compelled this study. The

results of this qualitative study, particularly of the phenomenological discipline, are

intended to provide insight into their individual preferences, decisions, and experiences

and inform public administrators charged with ensuring that their multigenerational

workforce is collaborative and competitive.

Purpose and Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative study was to capture and analyze the personal

experiences of Millennial public servants, determine what motivates them, and to provide

insights to administrations on how these workers can be most effectively engaged in the

public sector workplace. Given the size of the Millennial generational cohort and their

increasing numbers in the public sector, workplace consonance and productivity is

imperative. No studies have sought to analyze Millennials’ motivation in the public

sector using the phenomenological research methodology, which details their own point

of view.

Research Questions

Millennials in the public sector now find themselves working alongside up to

three other generations. These workers appear to have unique characteristics that have

been the subject of many academic studies and media attention. There has been, however,

8

a gap in the literature surrounding whether they feel engaged and motivated in the public

sector. Given the lack of studies that obtained data directly from Millennial public

servants, the phenomenological qualitative research paradigm was found to be most

appropriate to address the following research questions:

1. Based on Herzberg’s two-factor research and theory, what positively and

negatively motivates the Millennial public servant?

2. Are there specific strategies Millennial public servants can recommend to

positively motivate and retain them?

Theoretical Foundation

The theoretical foundation of this study was Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor

hygiene theory. The scarcity of literature specific to the Millennial generation as workers,

and even more so in the public sector, chartered the path of theoretical discovery that

began with an examination of the characteristics of Millennials, generational theory, and

then was followed by a literature search of appropriate motivational theory to use as the

theoretical foundation for this qualitative inquiry.

Peer reviewed research on the other three prior generations was reviewed to

determine whether Millennials could be described as unique from the preceding cohorts.

What became clear from the literature was that there are some shared characteristics

among cohorts, but many that are exclusive of each generation. Given these differences,

an examination of personal experiences in the workplace provides a better understanding

of whether a customized motivational strategy is necessary in the workplace.

9

Theories of motivation in the workplace were examined through an exhaustive

literature review, initially focusing on Perry and Wise’s (1990) public service motivation

based on the characteristics identified and their seeming compatibility with the

framework of rational, norm-based, and affective motives to address the research

question on suitability for public sector employment. The research questions and context

used already focused on public service, therefore establishing that high public service

motivation levels do not provide profundity of experiences or better comprehension of

motivational factors. The use of Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor theory was found to be

most suited to identify more specific positive and negative motivators based on its

extensive use, even in Hyun and Oh’s (2011) contemporary study of workplace

motivators, and provides the foundation for this inquiry.

This generational cohort has been both lauded and ridiculed, which compelled the

need to seek live data on their experiences and perspectives to inform public

administrators on how to better engage and motivate these often misunderstood workers.

Nature of the Study

The nature of this qualitative, phenomenological study, using in-depth structured

interviews, was to determine motivational factors of satisfaction and dissatisfaction

among Millennial public servants. It was also intended to identify strategies that can be

employed to manage Millennials most effectively to ensure that these workers are

motivated and retained.

The quantitative methodology was deemed to provide more sterile and

generalized data. Among the qualitative methodologies available for inquiry, the case

10

study and grounded theory were also given significant consideration. The case study was

not pursued based on privacy issues disclosed by the human resources representative at

the research site which would then preclude access to the individual’s past performance

level, salary, position, and other determinants that may have impacted identifying the

appropriate sample of participants to engage in the case study (Potter, von Hellens, &

Nielsen, 2010, p. 5). The grounded theory methodology was explored in greater depth

based on the scarcity of theory and because it allowed for an iterative process of

reframing the research questions, data coding, and theory development. Grounded theory,

however, was not the ideal methodology to explore the experiences of Millennials

themselves. The quest to understand the “phenomenon from the point of view of the

lived experience in order to be able to discover the meaning of it” (Englander, 2012, p.

16) compelled the use of phenomenological research. The rationale for methodology

selection will be further detailed in Chapter 3.

District of Columbia government employees that were Millennials were selected

as a criterion sample of convenience and, in addition, because analysis conducted on

these individuals provided an opportunity to explore the presence of these workers in two

levels of government simultaneously as a state and local public sector body.

According to the District of Columbia Department of Human Resources, in

March, 2015 there were 31,732 workers, and 7,736 of the employees were members of

the Millennial generation. Fifty District of Columbia government employees born after

1980 were initially randomly selected from this pool as potential participants by the

Department of Human Resources using an online tool; they were then asked via

11

telephone and electronic mail about their interest in participating in the study. Once five

participants were identified, a telephone interview was conducted to pilot test the

interview questions until saturation was obtained. Mason (2010) stated that a level of

saturation is reached when no new information is being obtained (p. 3). This process

allowed for refinement of any questions that were not effectively providing useful data

from interviewees. The structured interview questions were then administered to 20 study

participants. Their responses were transcribed, analyzed, and coded, and themes were

subsequently developed.

Herzberg’s (1966) foundational two-factor theory’s job attitude factors were used

to create the questions for the in-depth interviews based on the desire to get detailed

descriptions of the phenomenon (Englander, 2012, p. 25). The resulting data from the

interviews were coded to develop statements, descriptions, and themes, and these provide

insights into the factors that motivate Millennials and recommend strategies for public

administrators.

The following chapter introduces the process used in the literature search

conducted, the identification of significant gaps and conceptual foundation used, and

foundational theories of motivation that were researched.

Definitions

Specific terms used in this study may have several interpretations. In particular,

the timeframe for inclusion in a particular generation appears to have many differing

groupings. The timeframes ascribed to each generation for purposes of this study have

12

been delineated below as well as other terms that may warrant further clarification as

follows:

Baby Boomers: Those individuals born between the years of 1946 and 1964

(Council of Economic Advisers, 2014; Toossi, 2013).

Characteristics: A feature or quality that appears to be prevalent in a generation.

Generation X. Those individuals born between the years of 1965 to 1975, also

known as Gen X (Council of Economic Advisers, 2014; Toossi, 2013).

Herzberg’s two-factor theory: A motivational theory that addresses the question

“what do people want at work?” by examining the attitudes of workers and their job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).

Hygiene: Factors extrinsic to work, such as flexible working arrangements,

physical workplace, onsite gym.

Millennials, Gen Y, or Generation Y: Those born between the years of 1980 and

2000 (Council of Economic Advisors, 2014).

Motivation: “A range or psychological process that guides an individual toward a

goal and causes that person to keep pursuing that goal” (Sandri & Bowen, 2011, p. 45).

Public service motivation: A theory introduced by Perry and Wise (1990) that

gauges an individual’s desire to work in careers that serve the public.

Traditionals, Matures, Veterans, or Seniors: Those born between the years of

1922 and 1943 (Salahuddin, 2010).

13

Assumptions

Assumptions made in this study included that many of the descriptors and

characteristics attributed to the Millennials, as well as to Traditionals, Baby Boomers,

and Generation Xers, are not stereotypes. With regard to Millennials specifically, the

volume of studies gives more validity to this assumption.

The research was also intended to obtain and analyze data provided by members

of the Millennial generation using the assumption that they could best describe

motivational factors, as opposed to the perceptions of others, and that they would be

honest in their responses. While the research can also be augmented by seeking data from

other generations and members of the workforce, the focus on motivational factors is

assumed to be a fairly personal deliberation of the environment within which one works.

Additionally, the assumption is being made that participants engaged in a serious

discussion that was thoughtful and truthful to ensure the utility of the data provided.

It is also assumed that my past employment as a public servant in the District of

Columbia government did not limit or deter truthful responses. Every effort was made to

ensure that none of the participants were subordinates during periods of employment in

coordination with the human resources representative. This was also further ensured by

informing potential participants at the onset of this element and offering the ability to

terminate participation at any point in time. Participants were all engaged in a thorough

discussion about non-attribution and the importance of confidentiality as well as how the

information would be blinded and safeguarded. The questions asked ensured that their

responses did not elicit negative feedback specific to any particular District of Columbia

14

department or supervisor, and were intended to gain a higher level of understanding of

the phenomenon and not information that was of no relevance.

Importantly, the District of Columbia government was selected as a pool of

workers of convenience, given the ability to obtain data from and work with the District

of Columbia Department of Human Resources. The assumption was made that the public

workers in this state and local government were representative of public sector workers in

other jurisdictions. Given that the District of Columbia is a unique jurisdiction that

functions as a local government and a state, the assumption was made that by using

District of Columbia government employees, data could be obtained simultaneously from

both levels of government.

Scope and Delimitations

This qualitative, phenomenological study obtained data from Millennial public

sector employees to understand what motivates them in the workplace through the use of

in-depth structured interviews. While there are other qualitative methods of inquiry, my

interest in describing, understanding, and interpreting the Millennials’ experiences led to

the use of the interpretive stream of phenomenology (Tuohy et. al., 2013). The

delimitations of the study were that it focused on the experiences of Millennial public

servants, further restricted to those employed by the District of Columbia government.

Other local and state governments were considered, as were federal employees; however,

I sought to eliminate differentiating factors such as differing pay scales, rewards, policies,

and so forth, and therefore the findings cannot be generalized to all Millennial public

servants. Other delimitations included that the point of view of other workers in the

15

public sector workplace, such as supervisors, were not explored. These perspectives may

have added additional dimensions to this study; however, the goal was to confine the

inquiry to obtaining direct information from Millennials, particularly based on the gaps in

theory and literature. Additionally, participants were engaged in in-depth interviews and

not additional data collection methods such as the focus groups. While potentially useful,

the focus group was later reconsidered to ensure that the influence of the group did not

overshadow the experiences of each individual and that more probing questions could be

introduced when needed.

It is expected that the methodology used, as well as the findings detailed herein,

will provide insights into the experiences of the members of this generation and therefore

have a degree of transferability to other government organizations and jurisdictions. A

goal of the present study was to garner interest in further academic research based on the

insights provided, which also informs future research on public sector Millennials,

multigenerational workplaces, motivation, and retention strategies.

Limitations

The inclusion of a criterion sample of 20 for the structured interviews, while ideal

for this qualitative study, did limit the amount of data to be obtained, and while it was

useful to provide insight and recommendations for further study, it did not allow for

generalizations that could change public policy. While the sample size used in this study

was well suited, there is value in larger sample sizes. The criterion sample method was

most appropriate given that the District of Columbia human resources representative was

prescreening to those meeting the criteria of being District of Columbia government

16

employees and having been born after 1980. Perhaps this study can inform a subsequent

larger inquiry.

The sample of participants was blinded to race and ethnicity to obtain a random

sample, with manipulation only used to try to have equal gender representation. Despite

attempts at sample manipulation, the outreach and timeframe designated for the research

did not produce equal gender representation. Sixty percent of the participants in the study

were female, which is not representative of the federal workforce wherein 43.5% were

female in 2012 according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (p. 8). In addition,

the studied sample was not representative of the federal workforce—17.9% Black, 6.2%

Hispanic, 65.4% White—in comparison to the participant demographics of 45% Black,

25% Hispanic, and 30% White. Despite these variations from both the civilian labor force

and the federal workforce, the data obtained from the participants were largely the same

from all genders and all races (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2012, p. 8).

Chapter 4 will offer a more detailed explanation of the results.

Most of the actual study interviews, 75%, were conducted in person, and every

effort was made to ensure the date, time, and location selected maximized participation.

The limited phone interviews conducted, without regard to the pilot study, were done so

due to extenuating circumstances and a preference expressed by the study participant.

Glogowska et.al. (2011) stated that “there are few examples of studies where telephone

interviews have been conducted to collect qualitative data” (p. 17). Irvine (2011) also

emphasized the advantages of in-person interviews in terms of quality of data collected,

significantly more input received from the interviewee versus the interviewer, and the

17

value of nonverbal cues. Despite the literature, the phone interviews yielded significantly

more data from the study participants.

The participants were selected from one public sector employer—the District of

Columbia government. While this allowed for some controls in the conditions that the

employees were experiencing, there were shortcomings given that it is a local/state

government, which, while inclusive of both levels of government, could be considered

unique in terms of governance. As a former employee of the District of Columbia

government in a leadership role, I ensured that my past employment history was

neutralized by emphasizing confidentiality, nondisclosure, and ensuring that none of the

individuals selected were under my supervision or have been colleagues. The importance

of this academic study was underscored and was its transferability to other public sector

organizations, and how it is meant to inform administrators more broadly.

Significance of the Study

The number of members of the Millennial generation suggests that these

individuals are making their way into the workplace in large numbers (Council of

Economic Advisers, 2014; National Chamber Foundation, 2012; Winograd & Hais,

2014). Toossi (2013) projected that the size of the workforce will reach 163.5 million by

2022. While in 2000 Baby Boomers had the highest participation rates of 80% in the

workplace, by 2022 they will have shifted to rates below 40% which “will exert heavy

pressure on the overall participation rate” (Toossi, 2013, p. 12). During the first quarter of

2015, according to Fry (2015), the total Millennials in the workforce was 53.5 million,

which surpassed the participation of Baby Boomers (p. 1).

18

Millennials have had the experience of wars, September 2011, a global financial

crisis, sequestrations, furloughs, shutdowns, and a dramatic increase in the use of

technology, which have allowed particularly distinctive attributes to be detected. The

purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of this generational cohort in the

public sector and factors that motivate them, positively and negatively, in the workplace.

This is important data for public administrators to ensure their workforce is collaborative

and contributing, given the size of this cohort and the need to employ them, whether they

are the most suitable for public sector work or not. Millennial public workers could

possess attributes that are needed in the government workplace to ensure

competitiveness. Failing to engage this whole generation of workers would be to the

nation’s disadvantage (National Chamber Foundation, 2012). Should these new entrants

become disenchanted and disengaged, the global competitiveness of our governments

could suffer.

Summary

Public administrators must understand how to motivate and engage their

workforce to produce results. Millennials, a large cohort of 83.1 million with “unique”

characteristics, high levels of education, technological agility, openness to diversity, and

interest in civic society could prove to be well suited for the evolving public sector,

particularly in a changing global economy. This study sought to determine what

motivates these workers and whether they require differentiated strategies for

engagement and retention. The findings of this study will inform public administrators by

19

providing insights and recommendations intended to build a stronger public sector

workforce.

20

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The literature search on the Millennial generation demonstrated that they have

been studied more than precedent cohorts and have received much scholarly attention that

sought to differentiate them (De Hauw & Vos, 2010, p. 293; National Chamber

Foundation, 2012). No studies were located that examined the presence of Millennials

and their impact on the public sector workplace. Additionally, longitudinal data do not

exist that would allow for significant comparisons with other generational cohorts, and

studies have also left unanswered questions around what motivates these new entrants in

the public sector workplace and how they interact with up to three other generations

(Levenson, 2010). Given this lack of data, Levenson (2010) used the perspective of an

economist to determine whether differences exist by first identifying educational trends

over the past 30 years, demographic changes, lifecycle analysis, and recent trends in labor

markets. Levenson suggested that behavioral perspectives of the Millennials, when

coupled with differing economic needs, suggested that they may “differ significantly

from the previous generations’ attitudes” toward work (p. 263). However, given that

other generations have not been subjected to similar analysis to compare data sets,

Levenson believed that additional research is needed to determine whether this

generation is truly unique and whether “stereotypes about the Millennials will prove to be

yet another passing fad” (p. 264).

Thompson and Gregory (2012) claimed that as a generation “comes of age” there

are particular characteristics that can be attributed to them that may be unique from prior

21

or future cohorts (p. 238). Millennials do possess skills that appear to be relevant in

today’s workplace, which include their ability to multitask, high levels of educational

attainment, collaborative nature, appreciation of diversity, and command of technology

(Gesell, 2010; National Chamber Foundation, 2012; Salahuddin, 2010, p. 3; Wieck, Dols,

& Landrum, 2010, p. 69).

Millennials have been described as confident, motivated, and potentially the “next

hero generation” (Deloitte, 2009, p. 2; Pew Research Center, 2010; Wieck et al., 2010, p.

69). This generation has gained much scholarly attention, including some descriptors that

are not favorable (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). Whether the offspring of “helicopter

parents” or described as having a sense of entitlement, being impatient and requiring of

recognition, Millennials have made themselves known in the workplace for better or for

worse.

This chapter provides the search strategy utilized to include the identification of

significant gaps in research on Millennial public sector workers and motivational factors

in the workplace. The lack of theory on Millennial public workers and the gap in

motivational theory relative to this cohort produced the bulk of the literature on this

generation, which is related to their characteristics and how they are perceived in the

workplace. Theories of employee motivation were also researched, including Maslow’s

(1948) need hierarchy theory, Perry and Wise’s (1990) public service motivation theory,

and most specifically Herzberg et al. (1959) and Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor theory.

These theories were reviewed and used as a theoretical foundation for compiling

interview questions to guide the collection of data directly from Millennials. The two-

22

factor theory was also used to ascertain what intrinsic and extrinsic factors Millennials

respond to positively.

Literature Search Strategy

A review of the literature on Millennials in the workplace largely detailed the

characteristics of Millennials. The literature on the three precedent generations—Gen X,

Baby Boomers, and Traditionals—was also examined. The lack of theory on Millennial

public workers and motivation then led to the literature search on theories of employee

motivation that could be used to address the research. The theories were reviewed and

used them as a theoretical foundation for compiling interview questions to guide the

collection of data directly from Millennials. The two-factor theory was selected and used

to ascertain what intrinsic and extrinsic factors Millennials respond to positively.

The exhaustive literature search resulted in over 255 peer-reviewed studies and

other reports published during the past 6 years that detailed salient characteristics of

Millennials. A limited number of landmark studies, particularly Herzberg’s (1966) two-

factor theory, were published more than 5 years ago, and these were of relevance and

utilized because they were either the most recent source on the topic and/or because of

the depth of applicability to the knowledge being mined herein.

The literature review strategy included peer-reviewed journal articles, reports, and

dissertations. The Walden University Library provided access to Academic Search

Complete Premier, Expanded academic ASAP, ProQuest Central, PsycINFO,

ABI/INFORM Complete, Business Source Complete/Premier, and Political Science

Complete. Searches conducted used a combination of keywords and phrases to include

23

over thirty (30) phrases used to describe Millennials, including Generation Y, Digital

Natives, Next Gens, Net Gen, Tech Generation, Digital Generation; public service

motivation; motivation theory; generational and intergenerational, cross-generational,

and multigenerational relations; Generation X/GenX; Seniors, Traditionals, Matures;

Baby Boomers; public sector workplace + motivation/retention, leadership styles.

Reference lists of peer-reviewed journal literature and relevant dissertations were also

examined for further sources of data and information.

The literature gap on Millennials in the public sector provided a compelling

rationale for this research given their numbers, their increasing presence in the

workplace, and the changes that the public sector workplace has undergone (Deal et al.,

2010, p. 191).

Theoretical Foundation

The theoretical foundation for this inquiry was Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor

theory. There are many theories of motivation that have addressed individuals in the

workplace and significant controversy with each. Following Taylor’s (1911) scientific

management theory, which sought to apply science to workflows to determine ways to

increase efficiency, Mayo (1933) studied factory workers by analyzing their productivity

when subjecting them to changes in lighting. As with Taylor’s scientific management,

much has been written over the past three decades to either embrace or discredit Mayo’s

experiment. For example, more recently, Izawa, French, and Hedge (2011) examined the

experiments conducted at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric Company and found

the experiments were “seriously flawed” given the discovery of the impact of the

24

presence of the increased supervision during the testing (pp. 528, 544). The authors

claimed that the mere knowledge that workers were being closely monitored by their

superiors impacted their levels of productivity.

Maslow (1948) built upon the work of these early theorists and identified a

“hierarchy” that plays an important role in determining factors that motivate an individual

positively in the workplace, such as feedback, promotions, rewards and recognition, job

security, monetary incentives, and collegial relationships. The more the employer

satisfied the needs in the hierarchy, the greater likelihood of increased employee

productivity. Sandri and Bowen (2011) contended that Maslow’s five basic human needs

continue to be relevant, but the authors discredited much of the theory in relationship to

the workplace by contending “the highest priority for virtually every employee who starts

a new job is pay” (p. 48). Studies found in the present literature search did not support

this priority of needs, which is more closely delineated in Table 1.

Table 1 Three Most Important Factors in Choosing a Company

18-25 years 26-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years 56-65 years

Top 1 Opportunities for learning

Opportunities for learning

Quality of life Meaningful work

Meaningful work

Top 2 Quality of life

Work colleagues

Meaningful work

Compensation Quality of life

Top 3 Work colleagues

Quality of life

Compensation Corporate values

Corporate values

Note. Adapted from Generation Y and the Workplace: Annual Report 2010, by Johnson Controls, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.haworth-europe.com/en/content/download/8985/545674/file/Oxygenz-Report_2010_EN.pdf

25

Herzberg, through several well-documented collaborations with colleagues

Mausner and Snyderman (Herzberg et al., 1959), and building upon Maslow’s hierarchy

and the Hawthorne studies, examined workplace satisfaction and, most notably,

dissatisfaction. The distinction Herzberg made was including factors deeper than the

impact of a positive environment by introducing a concept defined as hygienes, an

independent phenomenon that allows for a clearer determination of the factors that can

create an unhealthy, psychologically, work environment. Herzberg acknowledged that

his motivation-hygiene theory is “perhaps the most heuristic theory” given how it has

inspired additional research, and disagreements (p. xvii). The theoretical foundation

provided by the dual elements of satisfaction and dissatisfaction are compelling and an

additional contextual lens to study the motivation of Millennials and the strategies public

administrators could utilize to engage and retain them.

Public service motivation is an additional theory that provided utility in the

present study and was developed through the observation that some individuals have a

desire to serve the public based on the strength of their rational, norm-based, and

affective needs (Perry & Wise, 1990). The characteristics attributed to Millennials appear

to be compatible with careers in public service.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework and the methodology used to develop theory is

presented in Figure 1.

26

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Traditionals

Xers

Boomers

Millennials

Maslow’s hierarchy

public service motivation Herzberg’s

two-factor

1st level

2nd level

Step 1. Characteristics of generations & generational theory

Step 2. Examination of motivational theories

Step 3. Data from Millennials through Herzberg’s theory

3rd level

27

The impact and presence of Millennials in the public sector workplace has not

been thoroughly examined. Deloitte’s (2009) study was one of the few that examined the

federal government as an employer based on a 2008 study that found that the public

sector was the “number one desired career path for graduating college seniors, almost

exclusively members of Generation Y” (p. 2). Beginning with the identification of the

characteristics of Millennials, then performing a comparison with the characteristics of

the three prior generations, there appears to be a pattern of alignment with Perry and

Wise’s (1990) theory. Other theories of motivation in the public sector were researched

followed by an application of Herzberg’s (1966) theory to elicit data on the factors that

influence positive and negative motivation.

Overview of Millennials

Millennials, the subject of much literary praise and criticism, are also most

commonly known as Generation Y, or Gen Y, because they want to know “why” (Gesell,

2010, p. 21). Millennials represent roughly 25% of the workforce in the United States and

total about 83.1 million, “making them the largest age cohort in the workforce in the near

future” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015, p.1). “Generation Y’s skills and potential are crucial

if economies are to move up the new value chain” (Espinoza, Ukleja, & Rusch, 2011, p.

20).

Beinhoff (2011) examined the most cited literature on the Millennial generation

and found that one of the challenges has been a disagreement among researchers with the

term Millennial, which is not universally adopted by many. The many different terms

used to describe them have resulted in a “confusing plethora of synonyms” (p. 20). Other

28

terms used included Digital Natives, Next Gens, Net Generation, Tech Generation,

Digital Generation, Screenagers, Netgeners, Trophy Generation, Trophy Kids, Peter Pan

Generation, Generation M, Me First Generation, Generation Why, Helicopter Parents’

Kids, Baby Boomlet, Baby Busters, Echo Boomers, Boomerang Generation, Generation

Next, and Generation O (p. 21). Additional terms used in the present study included

Generation We, New Boomers, Global Generation, Greatest Generation. The National

Chamber Foundation (2012) found over 30 terms used to define this generation, claiming

that they prefer the use of Millennial.

There has also been disagreement around the exact timeframe to include in the

span of years these individuals were born in, which can vary from 1977 to 2004

(Beinhoff, 2011, p. 21; Council of Economic Advisers, 2014). This dilemma is not new

as there have been different timeframes attributed to generational cohorts in the past.

These factors may lead to challenges in comparing data from cohorts as there is blending

in timeframes. Figure 2 describes differing timeframes used in literature identified as

most germane to the present study.

29

Researcher Start End Years Toossi (2013) 1976 2001 25 Nielsen (2014) 1977 1995 18 Myers & Sadaghiani, (2010) 1979 1994 15 Schoch (2012) 1980 1996 16 DeHauw & DeVos (2010); Hendricks & Cope (2012) 1980 2000 20

Gessell (2010), Wieck, et.al. (2010) 1981 2000 19 Lippincott (2010) 1982 1991 9 Twenge, et.al. (2012) 1982 1999 17 Bell, et.al. (2011) 1982 2000 18

Winograd & Hais (2014) 1982 2003 21

Figure 2. A Sample of Timeframes Used to Define “Millennials.”

The Pew Research Center (2010) also embarked upon numerous studies of this

generation to determine demographics, political and social views, lifestyles, priorities,

use of technology, economic and educational goals through the use of surveys

administered to adults, additional Pew surveys and U.S. Census Bureau data (p. 4).

Deloitte has issued annual reports on Millennials since 2007. The National Chamber

Foundation has also demonstrated keen interest in this generation with the issuance of a

comprehensive report.

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Toossi (2009)

Nielsen (2014)

Myers &…

Schoch (2012)

DeHauw &…

Gessell…

Lippincott…

Twenge, et.al.…

Bell, et.al.…

Winograd &…

30

The demographics state that 19% are Hispanic, 14% are African American and

5% are Asian and therefore they “are more racially and ethnically diverse than any

previous generation” (Nielsen Company, 2014, p. 6). Six out of 10 Millennials are non-

Hispanic whites, which is 10% more than the Baby Boomer generation (National

Chamber Foundation, 2012, p.3). Similar to the Traditionals, 11% are “U.S. born children

of at least one immigrant parent,” compared to 7% of Gen Xers and 5% of Baby Boomers

(p. 10). They had significant exposure to diverse lifestyles and cultures, including

multicultural day care and learning environments (Bell, Connell, & McMinn, 2011, p.

61). When coupled with globalization, Millennials are more appreciative of other cultures

and are more inclusive of others that are dissimilar. Bannon, Ford, and Meltzer (2011)

likened them to seeing “a world without boundaries” and they have been described a

protean in nature (p. 65).

Millennials were found to be more highly educated than the previous three

generations with 54% having some college education, compared to 49% of Gen Xers,

however, alarmingly, only 63% are employed, versus the previous generation when at the

same age 70% were employed (Pew Research Center, 2010, p. 10). Factors contributing

to the higher levels of unemployment include the economic recession and increased

participation in advanced education. Their median income also fell by 29% between 2007

and 2010, largely due to student loans (p. 3).

Characteristics of Millennials

If each generation has a personality, you may say that the baby boomer is the

idealist, shaped by Woodstock, JFK, RFK, and MLK. Generation X is the

31

skeptical independent, shaped by latchkeys, Watergate, and the PC. Generation Y

is the connected, diverse collaborator, shaped by 9/11, texting, and the recession.

(National Chamber Foundation, 2012, p. 2)

The literature on the Millennial generation largely defined them as possessing

unique characteristics, although Bannon et al. (2011) stated “each generation has

characteristics that make it unique” (p. 61). Lippincott (2010) found that while there

could be an “erroneous” tendency to group characteristics together and stereotype there

are “common” ways of identifying a generation that can distinguish them from others (p.

28). Beinhoff (2011) attributed these shared characteristics as attributable to historical

perspectives and experiences and a thereby emphasized their “need to be treated, taught,

marketed to, communicated with, and studied as distinct cohorts” (p. 20). Twenge,

Freeman, and Campbell (2012) claimed that uniqueness is based on cultural differences,

“as cultures change, their youngest members are socialized with new and different

values” (p. 1045).

Whether Millennials are a product of their times, typical of a young generation or

distinctly unique, Deloitte (2010) credited a time full of “high anxiety,” which included

increased awareness of terrorism, and numerous wars, as the impetus for Millennials’

characteristics (p. 1). Millennials themselves identified their generation as having a

“unique or distinctive identity” (Pew Research Center, 2010, p. 5). Many academics

agreed that there are characteristics attributed to this generation that can be generalized to

other cultures and socioeconomic realities, more so than the prior three generations

(Monteferrante, 2010, p. 58).

32

Monteferrante (2010) attributed their technological prowess to globalization, their

being principal users and promoters of the “technological revolution,” and having

witnessed the success of their fellow “digital natives” such as Mark Zuckerberg, of

Facebook, Andrew Coger of Runescape and others (p. 59). “Technology is hard-wired

into this generation, and they live with constant technological stimulation” (Gesell, 2010,

p. 22).

Gessell (2010) also described this generation as being optimistic, inclusive, open-

minded and self-confident. Even Millennials described themselves as self-confident

which can be confused and seen as having a sense of entitlement or lack of respect for

others (p. 23). They are described as having high levels of ambition and desire for

achievement, leading Bell et al. (2011) to call them the “most adored generation ever”

with their parents doting upon them, coddling them and regarding them as “trophies” (p.

46). They are seen as overly scheduled, with carefully planned lives and being

accustomed to praise and recognition even if they come in last (Monteferrante, 2010, p.

59).

Pew Research Center (2010) found that 21% of their survey respondents valued

“helping people in need” as a top priority and defined Millennials as “confident, self-

expressive, liberal, upbeat and open to change” (p. 5). Twenge et al. (2012) summarized

that they are “more community oriented, caring, activist, civically involved, and

interested than previous generations were” (p. 1046). Making a difference in the lives of

others is important and they volunteer in “record numbers” (Bell et al., 2011, p. 47;

McGlone, Spain, & McGlone, 2011, p. 196). In fact, Winograd and Hais (2014) believe

33

that other Americans will take cues from this generation and “demonstrate a greater

desire to advance the welfare of the group and be less concerned with individual success”

(p.2). McGlone et al. (2011) also believed that volunteerism was used for “padding of

resumes,” but also acknowledged altruism and social influences and having a desire to

improve the world (pgs. 196, 200). Yerbury (2010) found their involvement in and

interest in civic society as a means of self-expression well sought after by Millennials (p.

31).

There are negative characteristics also attributed to Millennials. Born from

“helicopter” parents that hovered around to address their every need, Millennials have

been labeled as having a sense of entitlement, “wanting it all,” selfish, and requiring

instant gratification (Shragay & Tizner, 2011). Gesell (2010) found they were overly

dependent on technology and too conscious of their image (p. 34). Other descriptors

included they are “supersized, unrealistic and disconnected between reward and

performance” (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010). Gesell (2010) also defined Millennials

as having different social norms than even the Gen Xers and are “far less able to read

nonverbal cues” and lacking in their ability to express gratitude (p. 23).

Twenge et al.’s (2012) research found them as being extrinsic and materialistic,

lacking concern for others in need and eventually concluded that they are “Generation

Me,” except in the realm of community service and volunteerism (p. 1046). Building on

the negative portrayal of Millennials in the media, Smith and Clark (2010) examined

whether this generation is more prone to fabricating their qualifications; while the study

was not conclusive, the hypothesis itself is alarming.

34

Millennials in the Workplace

Millennials and could positively “humanize” the workplace based on their high

levels of social responsibility (Bell et al., 2011, p. 45). In a survey administered to

Millennials, they had mixed feelings about whether their “characteristics position our

generation to help society address its most important issues” (p. 33). They do, however,

believe that their employer’s views must be congruent with their own social values

(McGlone et. al. 2011, p. 196). Price Waterhouse Coopers (2013) found that 86% of

Millennials would leave an employer that did not meet their corporate social

responsibility expectations (p. 7). In one of a very few studies of Millennials and their

attitudes towards public service, Donaldson (2008) quoted a Council for Excellence in

Government survey that asked Millennials about joining the government given their

apparent interest in civic engagement and found that 60% had never been asked

considered this sector for employment. While it is interesting that they believed they

should be “asked” to seek employment in the government, 70% of the respondents did

find this work would be appealing (p. 85).

Childs, Ginrich, and Piller (2010) stated that 96% are users of social networks (p.

22). Bannon et al. (2011) examined the results of studies on the ways in which

Millennials may impact a workplace and found the areas of technology participation,

diversity, social responsibility and work-life balance as the most salient areas where the

impact may be felt. With regard to the large number of Millennials that grew up using the

internet, personal digital assistant (PDA), and social networking, this generation appeared

to have been desensitized to the sharing of personal information which can be of concern

35

to employers. While Millennials can be accused of providing negative or inappropriate

comments on social network sites, they also argued that the use of these mediums is

necessary to effectively do their work.

Work-life balance is important to Millennials as they want the flexibility to

balance their lives (Bannon et al., 2011). Bell et al. (2011) found the high value this

generation placed on “being happy and having a strong family life” (p. 45). According to

Gesell’s (2010) examination, there is avoidance by Millennials of long working hours

and workplace flexibility. “Flexible hours are as important, if not more so, than

retirement benefits” (p. 24).

Millennials, according to the Deloitte (2010) study are more concerned about

opportunities for advancement at work then job security, are in search of, and are getting

more responsibilities at work, and are generally respectful and trusting of their superiors

if they consider them effective. While Millennials are flexible in their definition of a

workplace, which could include a coffee shop, they are also good team players (Gesell,

2010, p. 23).

Thompson and Gregory (2012) provided examples of Millennial “stereotypes”

around how they are perceived in the workplace. Lacking loyalty to their employers, they

appeared to require re-engagement from employers to convince them to remain. They are

also found to require constant feedback, which gives the perception that this cohort of

employees is unusually “needy” (p. 241). The perception of their sense of entitlement is a

misunderstanding, claimed Millennials, as they are instead ambitious in nature and not

having “a lack of patience and willingness to drudge through unglamorous components of

36

work” (p. 241). Smith and Clark (2010) stated that Millennials may be “less able to

analyze situations and to come up with workplace solutions independently” (p. 1). There

is also a preference for a more “casual” working environment and in some instances

wardrobe as some Millennials believed that if the work is getting done, their appearance

should not be of concern (Thompson & Gregory, 2012, p. 242).

Ng et al. (2010) sought to investigate career expectations in Millennials through a

survey of university students. Millennials described their desire to differ from their

Boomer parents by “making a life” and not “making a living” (p. 17). This distinction

was noted in several other studies, as well. Seventy-five of those surveyed expected a

promotion within the first 18 months of work and opportunity for advancement was their

priority. The study did, however, find that these Millennials were realistic with regard to

their starting salary, potentially due to their ability to research this data (p. 283). More

than half of the respondents indicated that they had no desire for long-term employment

with an organization. Coworkers are a key component to selecting employers,

emphasizing the “social aspect of work” (p. 289). It would appear that Millennials are

interested in knowing who their coworkers will be in the workplace prior to making

employment commitments, which would indicate that they are interested in collaborative

environments or even engaging with their colleagues.

Suleman and Nelson (2011) examined the potential of Millennials and what

would motivate them in the workplace and “tap into their unlimited potential” and

concluded that this generation do not need motivators that cost money (p. 44). In fact,

providing more work direction to get Millennials excited about work and encouraging the

37

use of their ideas will harness their talents. Encouraging their development and need for

coaching will meet their need to continuously learn. Their need for socialization leads to

the conclusion that placing them in team environments as opposed to working

independently on projects will motivate them more. Feedback is expected as is the need

for rewards that are “creative, varied and personalized” (p. 43).

Further examining the relationship that Millennials have with their colleagues,

Myers and Sadaghiani (2010) found that they appear to lack loyalty and work ethic,

which could inhibit their ability to easily assimilate into the workplace, work well with

others, commit to the organization and its mission, and respect and value those they work

with (p. 225). These findings appear to be somewhat contrary to some of the

characteristics of Millennials, particularly the studies that repeatedly described them as

collaborative. By concentrating on the more positive potential contributions of this

generation, the findings suggested that this generation may have a more global, broader

perspective of the marketplace and useful communication and information technology

skills that could “enhance organizational performance and… maximize productivity” (p.

235).

Leading Millennials in the Workplace

In determining what leadership styles would be most effective for managing

Millennials and up to three other generations in the public sector workplace, there is a

need to first understand the differences in expectations of this new cohort. Literature

exclusively focused on the public sector was minimal, therefore, the broader setting of

the workplace was used as a proxy.

38

Espinoza et al. (2011) studied the competencies of managers that are effective in

leading the Millennial generation and concluded “the single most important differentiator

was… the ability to suspend the bias of their own experience” (p. 19). Biased

interpretations of the characteristics of Millennials can cloud interactions and create

tension. The ability to be adaptive, without “acquiescing” enables effective leaders to

interact with impact (p. 21).

The following table demonstrates managerial competencies that would be

effective given Millennials’ orientation.

Table 2 Required Competencies to Effectively Lead Millennials

Perceived Millennial Orientation

Millennial Intrinsic Value Required Managerial Competency

Autonomous Work-Life Balance Flexing Entitled Reward Incenting Imaginative Self-Expression Cultivating Self-Absorbed Attention Engaging Defensive Achievement Disarming Abrasive Informality Self-Differentiating Myopic Simplicity Broadening Unfocused Multitasking Directing Indifferent Meaning Motivating

Note. From Espinoza, C., Ukleja, M., & Rusch, C. (2011). Core competencies for leading today’s workforce. Leader to Leader, 59; p. 21.

Thompson and Gregory (2012) believed that the transformational leadership style,

with current adaptations, is more appropriate for Millennials, “one that promotes

relationships and meeting individual needs” (p. 243). The addition of a “coaching

approach” is also suggested where managers “transform” what is perceived as negative

39

characteristics into strengths, somewhat of a tailored approach to leadership. They argued

that the perception of disloyalty can be seen as “entrepreneurial and externally focused”

(p. 243). Entitlement is a sign of ambition, confidence and the need for feedback is the

opportunity to build strong relationships with these workers (p. 244). The study suggested

that they need the investment of time, trust building, coaching and an individualistic

approach to leadership in order to retain Millennials in the workplace and was found to

be one of the few studies on leading a multigenerational workforce inclusive of

Millennials. Transformational and distributed styles were effectively used in the field of

nursing to more appropriately motivate multiple generations because employees felt more

engaged through increased communication and workers experienced increased

empowerment through delegation and the distribution of leadership functions. Salahuddin

(2010) adds that the participative leadership style also is more effective given their need

for understanding and belief in the mission, interest in working in teams, and admiration

and confidence in what they believe are “competent” leaders (p. 5).

Four Generations in the Workplace

Monteferrante (2010) recognized the difficulty and opportunity of having these

generations in the workplace, with differing values and experiences. The preceding

generations experienced hierarchies and authoritarian and paternalistic environments,

which don’t sit well with the new entrants as they prefer participative leadership with

fairness, transparency, feedback and coaching (p. 60). The challenge for employers is to

determine how to be more flexible and respect and value the diversity of these

generations (National Chamber Foundation, 2012).

40

Deyoe and Fox (2012) conducted a literature review and subsequent interviews of

500 employees in various Texas businesses to determine whether generational conflict

exists and found that some of the more tenured employees had experienced the most

discord they have had in their careers (p. 10). Some of the divergent perspectives of the

generations are as follows:

Table 3 Perspectives of Four Generations in the Workplace

Traditionals Baby Boomers

Gen X Millennials

Outlook Practical Optimistic Skeptical Hopeful Work Ethic Dedicated Driven Balanced Ambitious View of Authority

Respectful Love/Hate Unimpressed Relaxed, polite

Leadership By…

Hierarchy Consensus Competence Achievement

Relationships Self-sacrifice Personal gratification

Reluctance to commit

Loyal, inclusive

Perspective Civic-minded Team-oriented

Self-reliant Civic-minded

Turn-Offs Vulgarity Political incorrectness

Clichés, hype Cynicism, condescension

Note. Raines. C, Ewing, L. (2006). The art of connecting: How to overcome differences, build rapport, and communicate effectively with anyone. New York: AMACON.

Lavoie, et.al. (2010) studied retention strategies as applied to four generations of

health care and hospital employees and did not find the need to stress individualized

generational strategies. “General retention strategies that focus on improving the work

climate will apply to all generations” (p. 420). The importance of retention must be

underscored, given the challenges employers face when they invest heavily in talent to

achieve their stated goals and these individuals depart. In addition to high costs to recruit

41

and train, direct costs, there are indirect costs, such as knowledge lost by their departure.

“Losing tacit knowledge is detrimental to achieving long-term competitive advantage,

organisational objectives and high performance” (Masibirigi & Nienaber, 2011, p. 45).

Salahuddin (2010) concluded that generational differences do exist in the

workplace, particularly in examining the leadership styles of Traditionals, Boomers and

Xers. The main differences were around core values and characteristics admired in

leaders where Traditionals admired those that are forward thinking, Boomers and

Generation Xers admired ambitious leaders and Millennials admired caring leaders (p. 5).

The top leadership characteristics of Traditionals were directive, command and control,

with building consensus and interest in equality corresponding to Boomers and Gen Xers

(AMWA Journal, 2012, p. 143).

Shoch (2012) provided the following worldview of each of the four generations

which highlights their differing views:

42

Table 4 Worldview of Four Generations

Traditionals Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials Want to keep the peace

Witnessed to TV tragedies (MLK, Kennedy assassination)

Latchkey kids – developed early independence

Grew up in time of wars, mass shootings (Columbine, Denver)

Savers and prepared for rainy days

Witnessed first man on moon, wars, “pioneers in technology, medicine and science” (p. 26)

Blended and single family households

Tech savvy

Believe they have good advice to share

Advocacy and protests; “crave recognition” (p. 26)

Not impressed with authority (Nixon, Clinton)

Social networks

Many are working part time

Taking care of their children and their parents

Value family life; “work hard and play hard” (p. 26)

Value people more than money

Note. Schoch, T. (2012). Turning the ship around with a four-generation crew. Information Management. 46(4), p. 25-29, 47.

Wieck et al. (2010) sought to determine whether generational differences would

present themselves in the areas of work and environment satisfaction in a nursing setting.

The study found that all generations believed managers must be “dependable and

supportive” but there were differences noted in communication styles and expectations

(p. 73). Older generations want to get the respect of the younger workers that they must

coach and mentor, but respect must also be provided to the younger generations as they

“want to know they are recognized and valued” (p. 70).

Meriac, Woehr, and Banister (2010) cited the lack of research relative to

differences in work ethic among generations and sought to obtain more empirical

43

evidence. Through the use of multidimensional work ethic profile (MWEP), they studied

Millennials and the two precedent generations and their attitudes toward work using a

dataset of 1,860 participants over a 12-year period and concluded that differences exist.

Importantly, these differences presented more significantly between Millennials and Xers

(p. 320).

What is clear about the workplace is that generations tend to have somewhat of

unique personalities based on their experiences, “values, gender issues, tensions,

problems and approaches” (Stanley, 2010, p. 848). The existence of several generations

in a workplace is not a novel occurrence, however, Stanley (2010) conducted an

extensive literature review and found that given the need to flatten organizational

structures, employees are now working in more team centered environments which

argues the need for understanding “values, work ethics, communication styles and

approaches to problem-solving” (p. 849). Gessell (2010) stated that not only are there

generations that have their own values and mindsets, the Millennials are the most

challenging to lead (p. 21).

Simons (2010) urged all four generations to “iron out the ripples caused by their

generational differences” because management styles and attitudes on how work gets

done is “in a state of flux” (p. 29). Developing collaborative strategies that would enable

all to “coexist” would “mute” differences (p. 29). Shragay and Tziner (2011) aptly

concluded “perhaps the best course for an organization to adopt is to recruit as diverse a

workforce as possible in order to create a balance between the different influences of

each generation, and indeed, between different individuals as human beings” (p. 155).

44

Kowske, Rasch, and Wiley (2010) determined there are generational differences

at work, through a survey administered to 115,044 employees. The cost associated with a

differentiated strategy to engage each generation is prohibitive and therefore

organizations could consider “investigating the intersection of organizational culture,

structure, practices, and individual differences in the organization” (p. 277).

Gen X in the Workplace

Lavoie-Tremlay et.al. (2010) described these workers of independent, skeptical,

energetic and less loyal (p. 415). This cohort grew up in an era of business and

government scandals, AIDS, and decaying economic conditions led to the development

of individualistic tendencies and the need to develop creativity (Shragay & Tziner, 2011,

p. 144). “This generation was influenced by the reality of being a latch-key kid, the

proliferation of single-parent homes, soaring divorce rates, and the increasing

involvement of women in the workforce, cultural difference, fallen heroes, the Challenger

disaster, struggling economy, the energy crisis, and personal computers” (Andert, 2011,

p. 73). They are a cohort that practices time management well and require little

supervision, Generation X are focused on outcomes more than process, are fact based and

have adjusted to having to be flexible and resourceful (Hendricks & Cope, 2012, p. 719).

Masibirigi and Nienaber (2011) found that members of this generation are

particularly more challenging to retain, given their observation of the lack of loyalty paid

to their parents by employers, their need to be engaged in work that they find is

meaningful under leadership that they perceive to be competent and at a wage that they

find is appropriate. Similar to Millennials, Xers are looking for new ways of engaging

45

the workplace through virtual means and with added flexibility. They are also constantly

in search of opportunities for development and growth, feedback from all levels of the

organization and are particularly interested in knowing the potential career progression

opportunities (p. 47). This particular study overwhelmingly concluded that Xers are

dissatisfied in the workplace and thus accounts for them being “nomadic” and placed the

blame for their lack of satisfaction on their superiors’ inability to meet their needs.

Andert (2011) studied the four generations in the workplace and identified

Generation Xers, or “Nexus,” as sharing characteristics with the late cohort of Baby

Boomers (p. 72). Perhaps this observation can be made due to the disparity in

generational cohort timeframes identified in the literature, but the attribution of a “lack of

people skills” and being self-involved are similar characteristics attributed to Millennials

(p. 73). The independent nature of this cohort seems to be consistently addressed in

studies. There appears to be a lack of desire for “face time,” but rather a need for clear

direction so that work can get done largely independently (p. 73).

Baby Boomers in the Workplace

Defined as “driven to work” and seeking external validation, Boomers seek

attention and were coined as “workaholics” (Hendricks & Cope, 2012, p. 719). Roberts

(2012) claimed they were not “threatened by subsistence poverty” (p. 484). Boomers

survived prior recessions and increased their living conditions and standards and are

prone to “continuous improvement” (p. 484). Going the extra mile and being defined by

their work, Boomers are “driven by competition and material rewards” (Lavoie-Tremblay

et. al., 2010, p. 415). They have experienced difficulty balancing work and family, which

46

has impacted their offspring (Shragay & Tziner, 2011, p. 144). Baby Boomers appeared

to have “misgivings” about the latest technologies, unlike Millennials, and this “divide

has led to problems in coordination, trust, communication, and overall organizational

efficiency” (Sarringhaus, 2011, p. 237).

Labor statistics show that the number of Baby Boomers staying in organizations

has increased (Nielsen Company, 2014). Generation Xers were poised to raise into

leadership and still have not had their turn. Enter the latest generation, Millennials, and

the work environment becomes even more complex and even possibly crowded.

Schultz and Schwepker (2012) studied Boomers and Millennials to examine

differences in the sales culture around components such as visibility and involvement of

managers, face time, and collaboration through a mail survey administered to sales

professionals. Generational differences in preferences exist although their findings are

“far from conclusive” because Millennials have determined Boomers’ practices as the

status quo and do not completely discount them (p. 38). What Millennials appeared to

desire is the ability to contribute to the way business is done and for their ideas not to be

discounted.

Branscum and Sciaraffa (2012) studied the attitudes Millennials have towards

Boomers and other “older adults” in the workplace. The perceptions were found to be

very negative, with a disregard to their contributions. The study suggested increasing the

use of mentoring and coaching strategies as an opportunity to increase the understanding

of each generation’s perspectives in order to increase collaboration. Kowske, Rasch and

47

Wiley (2010) described the workplace as a “psychological battlefield” given the lack of

appreciation for each other.

Traditionals in the Workplace

There are very current studies that examine this generation. Also referred to as the

“Silent” generation, Veterans or Seniors, the members of this cohort have experienced

defining moments such as the Great Depression, and are frugal, hard workers, disciplined

and accustomed to hardship (Hendricks & Cope, 2012; Pew Research Center, 2010).

Hendricks and Cope (2012) stated that economic hardship had an indelible impact

on these workers and they are loyal, disciplined, team oriented as a result (p. 719). They

are utilitarian and adhere to rules, have great respect for authority, preferring leaders that

are directive, and having great respect for authority (Hendricks & Cope, 2012; Wieck et

al., 2010). Traditionals believed in leaders such as Eisenhower which bred loyalty in

them” (Wieck et al., 2010).

Wieck et al. (2010) described Traditionals as being more formal in tone,

preferring, for example, the use of the formal “Mr.” and “Mrs.” (p. 68). This level of

formality also transcends to their method of communication in the workplace, preferring

to have conversations in person vs. e-mails, formal memoranda and letters and personal

invitations and outreach. These 12.5 million workers have been taught the latest

technologies but often prefer to retreat to old methods or ignore the new ones completely

(Nicholas, 2009, p. 47). They may believe that the computer is less trustworthy and prefer

to maintain paper copies of critical files and documents.

48

Theories of Motivation

When examining motivational theories that could lead to a deeper understanding

of Millennials in the public sector, there are numerous theorists that have examined

behaviors and attitudes in the workplace. Even though many of these motivational

theories have been in place for decades, most continue to be debated and controversial to

the present day.

Maslow’s (1948) introduction of a hierarchy provides a foundational

understanding of how needs lead to self-actualization. With the foundational psychiatric

needs at the bottom of the hierarchy pyramid, followed by needs of safety, love and

belongingness, self and group esteem, and culminating with self-actualization at its peak,

Maslow’s research examined an individual’s basic human motivational journey through a

lifetime. This hierarchy can also be applied in the context of why individuals work and

how they work and can illuminate on what actions are needed to reach highest levels of

satisfaction in the workplace. The theory serves to provide an understanding of

Millennials and the factors that motivate, but does not allow for a distinction of how they

would differ from other generations particularly in the public sector workplace.

While the level of employee engagement is one dimension to determine a workers

level of satisfaction with the workplace, the theory of public service motivation examines

the characteristics of an individual to determine if they are more oriented towards this

field. The concept “as a special case of intrinsic motivation was introduced originally in

the public administration literature by linking intrinsic rewards to workers’ motivation to

accept employment in the public sector” (Georgellis & Tabvuma, 2010, p. 176).

49

Developed by Perry and Wise (1990), the theory introduced analytical categories to

describe the psychological needs or “motives” an individual can fulfill in the workplace

that are largely exclusive to public institutions. The use of rational, norm-base and

affective motives is introduced and then further augmented by Perry (1996) by including

a four-dimensional model: commitment to the public interest, compassion, self-sacrifice,

and attraction to policy making. The identification of characteristics in an individual that

can be described as “public service or pro-socially motivated” would lead decrease the

need for traditional “high powered” incentives (Georgellis & Tabvuma, 2010, p. 176).

Georgellis and Tabvuma (2010) claimed that public service motivation does not

have enough empirical evidence, as there have been findings that showed job satisfaction

decreases as the individual’s tenure increases a similar argument made in opposition to

Herzberg’s theory. They introduced an important element of duration of satisfaction, by

finding that once an individual transitions into the public sector job satisfaction remains

high for “up to five years” (p. 189). “This is welcomed evidence for those who advocate

the benefit of having intrinsically motivated people working in the public sector,” at least

for a period of time (p. 189).

Wright and Grant (2010) argued that the predisposition to public service and

expectation of higher levels of performance by these individuals cannot be clearly relied

upon with confidence due to “reliance on cross-sectional research designs” as opposed to

“contextual realism” (p. 692). The present study sought to invalidate this argument as

individuals are examined once in the environment being studied.

50

The lack of longitudinal data makes it difficult to determine whether public

servants with high levels of public service motivation are more easily dissatisfied with

the public sector if they are unable to significantly contribute to solving important

societal challenges (Wright & Grant, 2010, p. 692). While the issue of satisfaction over

time is not well studied, it is important to measure public service motivation as an

employee immediately enters the public sector and thereafter within different stages of

their career to determine if the values decrease and possibly provide interventions “to the

extent that public service motivation can be influenced by environmental conditions” (p.

694). There is a need for additional research to determine if those with high levels of

public service motivation are higher performers in the public sector, as current studies did

not demonstrate this.

Kernaghan (2011) found that high levels of public service motivation lead to

higher levels of performance and underscore the positive relationship between

organizational commitment and performance and determined that this tool should be used

“as a selection consideration for public-service appointments, helping new employees to

learn and respect public service values, adopting employee appraisal systems that foster

public service motivation, and developing leaders who model values-based types of

behavior” (p. 9). Employees with high public service motivation, Kernaghan argued, are

more motivated by intrinsic than extrinsic incentives (p. 15).

Herzberg (1966) advanced Maslow’s hierarchy as it relates to the workplace by

identifying additional factors that influenced workers beyond items such as pay, safety

and the workplace. Adding the component of more advanced psychological needs,

51

Herzberg determined that achievement, assignments, awards, advancement and other

higher-level needs are additional important determinants of satisfaction. Further,

Herzberg added the importance of employers realizing that worker satisfaction and

dissatisfaction are independent of each other and must both be considered and addressed

to ensure motivated and productive employees – only addressing the positive motivators,

for example, would only placate employees and not necessarily energize and motivate

them. Herzberg (1966) stressed that even if environmental factors (“hygienes”) are

“managed brilliantly, they don’t motivate anybody to work much harder or smarter.

People are motivated, instead, by interesting work, challenge and increasing

responsibility” (p. 87). Herzberg introduced the notion of KITA, also known as kick in

the pants, which despite its appeal, is instead not motivational. Whether an employer

chooses to reduce work hours, increase wages and fringe benefits and even engage in

extensive human relations programs and techniques, communication, job participation

and counseling the most effective way to appeal to humans is through the opportunity for

growth. “The stimuli for growth needs are tasks that induce growth… such as

achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth or

advancement” (Herzberg,1966, p. 92). Herzberg suggests ideas for job enrichment which

include that managers, without including the affected employees, select a subset of jobs

that require high levels of motivation for performance; brainstorm, but eliminating

suggestions that involve hygiene; screen the list for generalities – should be precise ways

of increasing responsibility not just lip service; and give the changes time to work,

realizing that this is a “continuous management function” (p. 96).

52

One of the many detractors to Herzberg’s theory, Gardner (1977), argued

somewhat convincingly that the basic tenant of satisfaction and dissatisfaction being on

two differing planes – wherein one does not contribute to the other, “a contradiction to

traditional psychology,” – does elicit some doubt on the foundational construct by

Herzberg. Gardner (1977) also analyzed the many experiments and interpretations that

were conducted and calls convenient the rejection of data when some responses did not

neatly fit in a category. He believed there were differing hypotheses being studied in an

aggregate fashion which is more apt to support the theory and concluded “that there is no

single test of validity for M-H theory but a multiplicity of hypotheses which should be

tested in a multiplicity of ways” (p. 203). One third of the experiments conducted

supported the initial theory and “the fecundity of the theory is not in doubt but its purity

certainly highly suspect” (p. 197). Sachau (2007) examined the “popular but

controversial theory” and sounded a call for the theory to be “resurrected” given what he

terms have been “misinterpretations” by scholars. Sachau explained that Herzberg’s

theory was intended “as a general framework for understanding the dual nature of

satisfaction/dissatisfaction, happiness/unhappiness, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation,

mastery/status and psychological growth/pain avoidance” (p. 389).

Baah-Dartey and Amoako (2011) understood and further analyzed the importance

of job enrichment and the need for managers to increase challenges and appeal of the

work and called for the redesign of jobs and responsibilities regularly (p. 2).

A more recent examination of Herzberg’s theory was conducted by Hyun and Oh

(2011) whereby soldiers and officers where tested to determine the effect of motivators.

53

This examination revealed that the level of seniority of an individual skews their

perspective, in particular “achievement” and “working conditions” and resulted in higher

levels of satisfaction (p. 100, 114).

For purposes of the present study Herzberg’s two-factor theory was used to

determine what motivators and hygiene factors are most prevalent in the minds of

Millennials and to what extent can public administrators strategize to increase

satisfaction.

Summary and Conclusions

The lack of literature on Millennial public sector workers led to an extensive

literature search on the characteristics of Millennials to determine whether they exhibit a

degree of uniqueness and would require a differentiated strategy to ensure they are

motivated and retained in the public sector. Thereafter, literature on the workplace

interactions between Millennials and the three precedent generations is also examined.

The significant gap of literature that emanated from the lived experiences of Millennials,

compelled interest in the phenomenological qualitative design method. An extensive

literature review of motivational theories in the workplace was also conducted, with

focus on Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor theory as fundamental to developing interview

questions for the study participants.

The following chapter will present the rationale for the selection of a qualitative

research methodology in order to effectively address the research questions. In addition,

the proposed study design, role of the researcher, plan for the collection of data and

54

warehousing, instruments and tools to be used, and issues of trustworthiness are

discussed therein.

55

Chapter 3: Research Method

Introduction

Millennials have been the subject of much attention, by their parents, their

coworkers, and even the field of academia (Pew Research Center, 2010). They appear to

have a different perspective and approach to life and also to work. They are a large

generation entering the workplace in significant numbers and making a mark. They have

also been exposed to a plethora of world events that have shaped their thinking and

approach. Political scandals, wars, economic recessions, and terrorism are a few of the

major events that have impacted them in their lifetimes. These events have had an impact

on the characteristics that appear to be prevalent in these individuals and may also have

helped shape their attitudes and worldview.

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to seek data from

Millennial public servants directly to determine what factors provide job satisfaction. As

their presence in the public sector increases and Millennials rise in the ranks, it will be

critical that public administrators understand what motivates them to ensure that they are

contributors to the mission of the government. This understanding comes from gaining

knowledge about what factors contribute to their satisfaction and elements that hinder

productivity.

The study design is discussed herein, to include the selection of study

participants; role of the researcher; methodology, design, and instruments used; and

issues to ensure credibility and trustworthiness.

56

Research Design Rationale

While there are alternative qualitative disciplines than the one selected for this

study, the desire to capture the experiences of the members of the Millennial generation

directly compelled the use of the phenomenological approach. While potentially the

narrative, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study approaches to inquiry could

illuminate motivational factors that impact this cohort this study sought to capture “the

special qualities of human experience as subject matter” (Churchill & Wertz, 2014, p. 4).

Seeking to “recognize the intentionality of all lived experiences including perception,

imagination, volition, expectation, remembering, thinking, feeling and social behavior”

provided more depth and meaning (Churchill & Wertz, 2014, p. 9). Through the

determination that participants have experienced the phenomenon—Millennials

employed in the public sector—the form of hermeneutic phenomenology is used to

narrow in on “the subjective experience of individuals and groups” (Kafle, 2011, p. 186).

The following research questions were addressed:

1. Based on Herzberg’s two-factor research and theory, what positively and

negatively motivates the Millennial public servant?

2. Are there specific strategies Millennial public servants can recommend to

positively motivate and retain them?

Twentieth century theorist Husserl (as cited in Tuohy et. al., 2013) introduced the

concept of phenomenology as “returning to and exploring the reality of life and living”

(p. 18). Phenomenology in its design allows for others to be there and allow scientists to

experience, with accuracy and detailed descriptions to “penetrate the mere phenomenal

57

appearances we find in reality, since our real concerns are—after all—to be found in that

which lies behind these appearances” (Allsobrook, 2014, p. 1). “Phenomenology is the

study of phenomena: their nature and meanings. The focus is on the way things appear to

us through experience” (Kafle, 2011, p. 181). To address the research questions, this

study obtained and analyzed the experiences of the group studied, Millennials, by using a

specific philosophical movement, interpretive phenomenology, also described to as

hermaneutics (Tuohy et.al., 2013, p. 18). An understanding and acknowledgment of

influences and potential biases are included as a part of this study in an effort to better

understand the phenomenon and also set aside bias and possible influencers through

“reflection and self-scrutiny” to ensure that the results of this study were not influenced

by the “myths” that are predominant in the literature, my own world view and life

experiences (Tuohy et. al., 2013).

Role of the Researcher

As the researcher, I was the sole investigator for this study. I realized that my

professional experience as a former employee of the District of Columbia government

and the United States of America’s federal government may have an impact on the

interpretation of data obtained. However, it was this very same experience that fostered

interest in this area of study. In order to ensure the present research study was devoid of

bias, the data collected from the generational cohort were first transcribed and thereafter

well documented, included verbatim responses, and were restricted to the phenomenon

being studied and not open to any biases in interpretation in the development of clusters

and subsequent descriptions. Creswell’s (2013) thorough guidance on the importance of

58

focus on the phenomenon supported these efforts by ensuring that any prejudgments were

suspended and the research purely captured and disseminated the viewpoint of the

Millennials, which has been far too scarce in the scholarly archives. Patton (2002)

described the epoché, or process necessary for me to eliminate, or at a minimum highlight

views, prejudices, or other assumptions about the phenomenon that could hinder the

validity of the study (p. 485).

While I have extensive familiarity with the public sector, having served for over

20 years as an administrator at the state, local, and federal levels of government, I did not

engage individuals that directly reported to me to ensure that the data were not

compromised or biased. This was accomplished by advising the District of Columbia

Department of Human Resources to delete any Millennial candidates that directly

reported to me from the overall pool of candidates for the study.

When the original sample was compiled, I divulged former position in the

aforementioned government to the potential study participants (See Appendix A). The

individuals were asked if they were familiar with me and if this would have an impact on

their participation. As stated in the introductory e-mail, all notices and sessions conducted

with participants were prefaced with the need to safeguard the integrity of the study and

emphasizing the need for unbiased opinions, the importance of confidentiality, and the

overall goal of the study, which was to encourage social change through the appreciation

and increased engagement of Millennial public servants by their leadership.

59

Methodology

While quantitative and mixed methods of inquiry could have potentially been

employed in addressing some aspects of the research questions, the qualitative research

methodology was selected based on the conclusion that the majority of the literature on

Millennials did not obtain all of the data from them directly. Qualitative methodology

provided the ability to conduct interviews with Millennial participants in an iterative

fashion.

Other methodologies considered under the umbrella of the qualitative tradition

were case studies and grounded theory. The case study is an appealing process that could

identify the journey of a Millennial employee and probe deeply into the experiences,

attitudes, and opinions of one or two individuals. The need to secure information that was

deemed confidential by the District of Columbia Human Resources Department

representative prior to selecting the sample deterred the use of this methodology. If a

participant selected, for example, were an outlier and had biases, this would limit the

ability to generalize from data obtained.

The grounded theory form of inquiry provided the guidance to create nonexistent

theory, but lacked the critical and missing voice of the participants through their lived

experiences. While the “systemic rigor” of this method was appealing the iterative nature

of this method of inquiry was of concern. “Unfortunately, theory bits have the ability to

stunt further analysis because they can sound so correct” (Patton, 2002, p. 491).

60

Research Design

The following steps were followed in the present phenomenological research

study.

1. Determination that the shared experience of the Millennial subjects would

assist in developing a more thorough and accurate understanding of the factors

that motivate them;

2. Clear articulation of the specific phenomenon—Millennials working in the

public sector;

3. Identification and isolation of the researcher’s experiences, biases, and

potential judgment;

4. Engaged Millennials predominantly in interviews ensuring that the

participants voice was captured forming “individual phenomenal descriptions”

(Churchill & Wertz, 2014, p. 15).

5. Careful analysis of individual experiences that obtained “textural and

structural” descriptions to further develop common statements and in depth

descriptions.

6. Segregation of significant data and capturing “clusters” which were bracketed

and examined by identifying similarities, key phrases, meanings,

interpretations to enable the creation of detailed and content rich descriptions.

7. A presentation of the “essence of the phenomenon” to include the true and

descriptive “essence” of the participants’ experience (Creswell, 2013, p. 62).

61

“What emerges is a depiction of the experience and a portrayal of the

individuals who participated in the study” (Patton, 2002, p. 487).

In collaboration with the District of Columbia’s Department of Human

Resources’ representative 50 potential participants were selected by using the criteria of

being District of Columbia government employees and with a date of birth of 1980 or

above. Using software developed to select random samples, the human resources

representative sought to engage equal numbers of men and women. The first five

participants selected were engaged in a pilot test of the interview questions through the

use of a telephone interview (See Appendices B and D). Participants were not told that

they were engaging in a pilot test of the questions. The purpose of this pilot test was to

determine suitability of the questions. In addition, I determined saturation was obtained

after the first five interviews.

Upon receipt of the contact information of the larger sample all potential

participants were e-mailed and called inviting them to participate and interviews were

scheduled with the first 20 individuals that offered a balance in gender; however, some of

the participants later did not respond to calls and e-mails requesting confirmation of

interview times. The customary “steps” for facilitating and conducting interviews were

followed, to include the determination of a goal, process for selecting participants, site

selection, method for recording data, and, most importantly, the instructions provided to

study participants and role of the researcher, which can be found in Appendices A, B, C,

and D.

62

While the duration of the interviews was estimated to be 45 minutes to allow for

transportation and so forth, most interviews only lasted 15 minutes. The individual

interviews were all audio-recorded to allow me to not have to focus on taking notes, but

engage fully in asking the initial questions, prodding, and ensuring that rich data were

being collected and time was used efficiently. A gift card of with the value of $20 for the

CVS pharmacy was offered as an incentive for participation.

At the commencement of all interviews, I reiterated the purpose of this academic

study, stressed the importance of confidentiality and non-attribution, and asked if

participants were comfortable with proceeding. Individuals were told they could leave

the study at any time and that the data obtained would be kept on the hard drive of a

computer that remains under lock and key. This information was reiterated and

documented through the informed consent form. The interviewees were provided a

number from 1 to 20 and hereafter will be known only by this number for purposes of

confidentiality. All notes solely reflect this number and not the name of the individual.

All data herein will also not reflect the names of District of Columbia agencies whose

employees participated, in order to further ensure confidentiality.

The purpose of the interviews was to obtain information pertaining to factors that

satisfy and dissatisfy the individual in the workplace, in accordance with Herzberg’s

(1966) theory. I also contemplated the use of the focus group as a data collection

method. However, Herzberg’s theory is based on an individual and factors that motivate

him or her. There was uncertainty as to whether the other participants would limit or

impact an individual’s responses through the process known as group think and issues of

63

confidentiality among fellow coworkers deterred the use of the focus group as a data

collection method.

The following questions are based directly on Herzberg’s work and subsequent

studies and analysis and have only been slightly modified in order to obtain richer

responses. Additional probing prompts such as “please elaborate” were added to solicit

more information when required.

Q1. Do you feel that other generational cohorts in your workplace have a good

understanding of what factors motivate you and your Millennial colleagues?

Q2. What adjectives would you use to describe yourself as a Millennial public

servant?

Q3. Can you describe your accomplishments in your present position?

Q4. Are you routinely recognized for your work? If so, how are you

recognized? If not, how does this impact your motivation?

Q5. What is your opinion about the work itself?

Q6. What is your opinion about your level of responsibility?

Q7. Have you had opportunities for advancement since you were hired? If not,

does that have any impact on your motivation?

Q8. Do you feel that you are fairly compensated?

Q9. Do you feel that there is a possibility for further growth?

Q10. How would you rate your relationships with your subordinates? Good?

Fair? Poor? Please expand.

64

Q11. How would you rate your relationship with your superior? Good? Fair?

Poor? Please elaborate.

Q12. How would you rate your relationships with your peers? Good? Fair?

Poor? Please elaborate.

Q13. Do you feel you have the appropriate technical supervision to do your job?

Q14. Do you have the adequate resources to do your job?

Q15. Are you fairly satisfied with how existing policies are administered?

Q16. How are your working conditions? Good? Fair? Poor? Please expand.

Q17. Do you have work/life balance?

Q18. Do you feel that you have job security?

Q19. Is there anything further you would like to share?

The responses to these questions were typed from the audio recording and loaded

into NVivo 10 for coding purposes using the following “open” codes with the

interviewee number (1-20) assigned:

1. Achievement

2. Advancement

3. Policy and Administration

4. Recognition

5. Responsibility

6. Work Itself

7. Salary

8. Supervision-technical

65

9. Interpersonal relationships peers

10. Interpersonal relationships subordinates

11. Interpersonal relationship superior

12. Working conditions

13. Other

Issues of Trustworthiness

There were multiple strategies to ensure internal validity during the data

collection stages and beyond. The first stage of research was the literature review to

collect data on the characteristics of Millennials. Despite the plethora of media articles,

magazines and other popular sources most of the sources of this data were restricted to

recent peer-reviewed, scholarly literature to ensure validity and subsequent credibility. In

addition, there were many articles excluded if their target Millennials were exclusively

from other countries. Thereafter, literature on the other three generations was confined to

recent articles, when possible mentioning their interaction with members of the

Millennial generation in the context of the workplace.

In preparation for the interviews, there were several steps taken to ensure validity

and the integrity of the research project. Once the initial set of participants was obtained

from the District of Columbia Human Resources representative, those selected for the

study were assigned a participant number. Only I will know their identity. This

information is safeguarded in the NVivo 10 software on my personal under lock and key.

The audio tapes of interviews were downloaded in the NVivo software and thereafter

deleted from the recording device. The need for confidentiality was underscored at every

66

stage of data collection, from the language inserted in the original contact e-mail, and

preceded any telephonic or in-person discussions, with further articulation prior to the

commencement of the interviews. All notes were typed and loaded in NVivo which will

remain the virtual custodian of all records. During every contact point potential

participants, whether virtual, telephonic or in person, were told that their participation

was voluntary. They were afforded the opportunity to stop participation at any juncture of

these interactions without the need to offer any explanation.

The research design established an original pool of 50 individuals as randomly

selected members to participate in the study and a timeframe of one month within which

to conclude the actual research study. While it was anticipated that this pool would not

render the desired 20 interviews, it did. There has been considerable theoretical debate

about the appropriate sample size for a qualitative study. While qualitative studies

generally involve smaller sample sizes than quantitative studies, Mason (2010) found the

mean sample size in phenomenological studies was of 25 (p. 6).

The former employment with the government being studied, could impact the

credibility and validity of this study. However, in addition to close collaboration with the

supervising academic committee, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process that

Walden University employs, I provided full disclosure of this relationship and made

every effort to ensure that data obtained was not subject to biases or prior experiences.

Ethical considerations were of utmost importance as well as the validity and

reliability of data collected. In designing this study it was ensured that there were no

potential risks or benefits associated with participation. The consent form, and all

67

documentation used to communicate with participants were submitted to and approved by

Walden University’s IRB (Approval Number 06-26-15-0041994, expiring June/25,

2016). Realizing the need to emphasize confidentiality in order for study participants to

be fully engaged and responsive to the interview questions, I developed a numerical

coding system for participants interviews and responses; coded the names of the

organizations that the participants worked in; and stored all interview recordings and

signed consent forms on a secure computer. No further information was provided to the

HR representative on who eventually participated in the study and any feedback on data

provided. This information must remain private and confidential as required by the IRB.

Issues of reflexivity did not occur as my former employment with the District of

Columbia government was shared with participants and fully disclosed. The researcher

was cognizant of any potential biases or misconceptions and made every effort to fully

and accurately put forward the data as explicitly received from study participants.

Summary

A new generation of workers, almost a quarter of the U.S. workforce, is now in

place yet there is little understanding of how they are faring in the public sector

workplace. The importance of this study cannot be overlooked. Millennials are a

generation of over 83.1 million individuals that whether liked or disliked will have a

presence in the public sector for decades to come. The characteristics of Millennials

could prove not just unique but relevant for the economy of the future and mission of

government. By obtaining data from these workers directly, we are provided a lens into

their experiences which contributes to ensuring they are properly engaged and motivated.

68

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

This phenomenological examination of factors that motivate the largest

generation in the U.S. labor force, Millennials, in the public sector workplace sought to

address the following research questions:

1. Based on Herzberg’s two-factor research and theory, what positively and

negatively motivates the Millennial public servant?

2. Are there specific strategies Millennial public servants can recommend to

positively motivate and retain them?

The previous chapter provided the research tools used, the rationale for research

design, and documented the process of the study to include trustworthiness and validity

of the study and results. This chapter provides results of the one-on-one, structured

interviews conducted first to include the information obtained from the pilot study and

any adjustments made to the interview questions and data collection process. The

organizational conditions experienced by participants are shared below as well as

demographics and characteristics of the study participants. An analysis of the data and

how they were coded is presented followed by evidence of trustworthiness. The results

will be presented as they address the research questions, as coded and with subsequent

themes, concluding with a summary statement.

69

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted once the permission was received from the Walden

University IRB. The pilot study presented an opportunity to test the interview questions,

which were based largely on Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor theory.

The human resources representative provided the contact information for potential

participants, instructing them to use phone numbers as e-mails could be subject to the

government’s firewalls, and was followed up with an introduction and established

appointment times for these pilot participants. These individuals were e-mailed the

informed consent form and also received the $20 CVS gift card. The pilot test was

conducted via telephonic interviews and included three men and two women in two

District of Columbia government agencies. In addition to being able to gain more insight

into the positive and negative motivational factors, I was also able to determine

similarities and themes very quickly. After the first five respondents, saturation was

achieved in most questions with some additional observations on ways to elicit more

information from respondents by asking them to expand more on their answers and areas

requiring clarification as follows:

Q13. Do you feel you have the appropriate technical supervision to do your job?

This question confused pilot participants as they were unsure as to whether it was

intended to gauge access to new technologies or access to support from the internal

information technology help desks. I elaborated that technical supervision could refer to

any training, manuals or direction required to perform their duties.

Q15. Are you fairly satisfied with how existing policies are administered?

70

Pilot study participants asked whether this question was about all district-wide

policies, such as human resources policies, or more on a micro level related to their

agency or operating division. In this instance, I responded that either interpretation would

yield useful data. No changes were made in the language of the questions as submitted to

the IRB.

Of note, upon review of the information obtained from the participants of the pilot

test in comparison with the first six interviews in the actual study, it seemed that

participants interviewed telephonically were more expansive in their responses despite

the adjustments made by asking study participants to expand on their answers and asking

questions of clarification. Pilot interviews averaged 20.5 minutes. The participants were

offered the option of a telephone or face-to-face interview for the remainder of the

interviews with a preference on in-person. As a result of this finding, seven study

participants were allowed to participate via telephone as scheduling an in-person

interview proved challenging or would not occur timely. The telephone interviews were

not of lesser quality. In fact, in one particular case (Participant 19) the telephone

interview lasted 30 minutes and was one of the most expansive and informative.

Setting

The 20 participants in this research study included eight men and 12 women (See

Table 6). Their educational attainment levels ranged from only high school diploma (one

participant) to 6six having master’s degrees, seven Juris Doctors, with the remaining

having bachelor’s degrees or some college. Thirteen interviews were conducted in person

and seven were conducted by telephone. Interview duration times ranged from 15.07

71

minutes (in person) to 30.5 minutes (via telephone). From the observation obtained from

the District of Columbia Department of Human Resources representative, there was great

variation in seniority and actual job descriptions. This was not intentionally manipulated.

One participant self-identified as Persian, six were White, nine Black, and four Hispanic.

The study participants were from six different District of Columbia agencies, each having

different missions, sizes, leadership structures, and even physical spaces. The six

agencies are not identified in this study to further maintain the confidentiality of study

participants.

Demographics

The demographic composition of the 20 individuals that participated in the study

appears in Table 5.

72

Table 5 Demographics of Study Participants

Race Gender Education Department Code

1 Hispanic M Masters A 2 Hispanic M Masters A 3 Hispanic F Some college B 4 Hispanic M High school C 5 Black F Masters D 6 White M Masters C 7 Black F Masters A 8 Black F Some college A 9 White F Juris Doctor A 10 White F Masters A 11 Persian F Juris Doctor A 12 Black F Juris Doctor E 13 Black M Juris Doctor E 14 Black F Juris Doctor E 15 Black F Bachelors E 16 Black M Bachelors E 17 Black F Bachelors E 18 Black M Juris Doctor E 19 White F Juris Doctor E 20 White M Masters D

Data Collection

Upon receipt of the names and contact information of Millennial District of

Columbia government employees from the District of Columbia Department of Human

Resources representative, contact was made with the potential participants via phone and

e-mail using the protocols established at Appendices A, B, C, and D. As previously

mentioned, the representative asked that contact be made by phone given the large

number of e-mails that the government employees receive and their stringent firewalls

73

that could classify the e-mails as spam. Given this new information individuals were

contacted telephonically in most instances using the scripts as initially intended.

At the onset, every effort was made to try to balance the sample size by having

equal gender participation. However, some participants had last-minute cancelations,

business travel, and illness, making it difficult to achieve. I had allotted a period of 3

weeks to conduct the interviews. When the decision was made to go ahead with the

current sample of 20, with 60% being women, it was done having observed that the

responses received from the six men were very similar to the responses received from

women. It appears that the experiences based on the phenomenon being studied were

shared by both genders. Two participants (12 and 14) also did not consider themselves to

be Millennials, despite explaining the timeframes associated with this generational cohort

and the fact they were squarely included. Despite the reluctance to self-identify as a

Millennials, these two respondents’ responses were consistent with the other participants.

As is consistent with the descriptive hermeneutic approach to the

phenomenological methodology of study, I believed that by providing rich descriptions

the study would offer interpretations of the phenomenon. Once all interviews had been

transcribed and re-read, then the coding began in NVivo 10 according to the motivator

and hygiene themes and underscored what were deemed to be “significant statements,”

some of which are underlined in the archetype responses provided herein. These

statements allowed for textural descriptions and subsequently composite descriptions,

findings, and recommendations.

74

Data Analysis

Similar to the positive characteristics attributed to Millennials in the literature

reviewed and as detailed in Chapter 2, participants provided the following adjectives in

Figure 3 to describe themselves as Millennial public servants in response to Question 2

(which was used as an ice breaker):

Figure 3. Self-Ascribed Characteristics of Millennials.

Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor theory distinguishes between those (a) motivators

that positively provide satisfaction that are typical of the actual job and the (b) hygiene

factors, which do not provide positive satisfaction but can prove to dissatisfy employees

if they are not properly addressed (see Figure 3).

75

Figure 4. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory.

The responses from the questions used to interview the 20 participants were coded

to the Herzberg’s (1966) factors as follows in Table 7:

Table 6 Motivators

Motivator Code

Motivator Question No.

Question

1 Achievement 3 Can you describe your accomplishments in your present position?

2 Advancement 7 Have you had opportunities for advancement since you were hired? If not, does that have any impact on your motivation?

3 Recognition 4 Are you routinely recognized for your work? If so, how are you recognized? If not, how does this impact your motivation?

4 Responsibility 6 What is your opinion about your level of responsibility?

12 Work Itself 5 What is your opinion about the work itself?

B - Hygiene Factors determine level of

dissatisfaction A - Motivation Factors determine levels of

satisfaction

76

Table 7 Hygiene Factors

Hygiene Code

Hygiene Factor

Question No.

Question

5 Salary 8 Do you feel like you are fairly compensated?

6 Policy & Administration

15 Are you fairly satisfied with how existing policies are administered?

6 17 Do you have work/life balance? 6 18 Do you feel that you have job

security? 7 Supervision

Technical 13 Do you feel you have the appropriate

technical supervision to do your job? 8 Interpersonal

Relationships Peers

12 How would you rate your relationships with your peers? Good? Fair? Poor? Please elaborate.

9 Interpersonal Relationships Subordinates

10 How would you rate your relationships with your subordinates? Good? Fair? Poor? Please expand.

10 Interpersonal Relationships Superior

11 How would you rate your relationship with your superior? Good? Fair? Poor? Please elaborate.

11 Working Conditions

16 How are your working conditions? Good? Fair? Poor? Please expand.

Resources 14 Do you have the adequate resources to do your job?

13 Other 1 Do you feel that other generational cohorts in your workplace have a good understanding of what factors motivate you and your Millennial colleagues?

77

At the onset of this study, the following questions were added and subsequently

categorized them as follows:

Q1. Do you feel that other generational cohorts in your workplace have a good

understanding of what factors motivate you and your Millennial colleagues?

This question can be considered a hygiene factor as it reflects the nature of the

interpersonal relationships.

Q17. Do you feel that you have work/life balance?

Q18. Do you feel like you have job security?

Both of these questions were interpreted as descriptive of the organization’s

policy and administration components, and thus hygiene factors.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

To satisfy quality assurance and level of trustworthiness in this research study, no

adjustments were made to the credibility, transferability, dependability, or the

confirmability strategies discussed previously in Chapter 3. When it appeared that there

may be a need to manipulate participant names received from the human resources

representative to capture an equal number of men and women, I opted not to do so. As

stated, all of the tape recordings were transcribed verbatim and loaded the transcripts into

the NVivo10 software program. Only direct quotes were used to gather themes and

subsequent recommendations. NVivo 10 was used to capture all data and use for coding

purposes and reports that provided a useful aid in conceptual and axial coding. All

interviewees were blind-coded from 1 to 20 and agencies were also blinded in the

responses to ensure that confidentiality was not breached.

78

Results

Research Question 1: Based on Herzberg’s two-factor research and theory, what

positively and negatively motivates the Millennial public servant?

Herzberg (1974) suggested that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are produced

by different work factors. “What makes people satisfied at work are factors that relate to

the content of their jobs—specifically, achievement, recognition for achievement,

interesting work, increased responsibility, growth and advancement” (Herzberg, 1974, p.

18). “They are present in appropriate amounts in any organization, they bring about work

motivation as a corollary to their creating positive attitudes of job satisfaction” (p. 18).

While hygiene factors are not directly associated with the job they comprise the

physiological, safety and love needs from Maslow’s hierarchy (Baah-Dartey & Amoako,

2011, p. 2). While not necessary to maintain satisfaction they are necessary to prevent

dissatisfaction. Importantly, Herzberg (1966) stated that even improving these conditions

will not create motivation.

The responses to interview questions are presented according to the open codes

ascribed to them from 1-12 as detailed beforehand in Chapter 3.

1. Achievement – Q3

The researcher has chosen not to provide verbatim responses from participants

under this factor, largely because they were very descriptive and provided insight into

what agencies and operating units the interviewees were employed by. Overall, this

question provided the most animated and expansive responses from all interviewed.

Herzberg (1974) placed achievement as a top motivator in his classic profile although he

79

stated that “the most important motivators occur with the least frequency. Personal

growth is the end goal of the motivators, while achievement is the starting point for any

personal growth” (p. 20).

I have accomplished a lot. Thinking outside the box, by starting programs that

were not there, building a legacy. (Participant 2, male)

My greatest motivation is to help others. In order for me to get where I am

someone helped me along the way so I want to pass on the torch as well.

(Participant 7, female)

I feel like I am actually making a difference. (Participant 10, female)

Theme 1: Importance of achievement. All of the respondents provided lengthy

responses when asked about their accomplishments. Achievements were largely tied to

the mission of the public sector and appeared to be valued more because they provided

opportunities for the respondents to align with their values. Achievements that also

provided the opportunity to do their best work – to be trusted and empowered to put forth

solutions were repeatedly mentioned by all of the participants. “Being empowered,”

“thinking outside of the box,” and “opportunities to lead” were mentioned. All of the

respondents mentioned accomplishments proudly and appeared to believe that based on

these accomplishments other motivators, such as recognition and advancement, should

follow.

2. Advancement - Q7

Five of the participants indicated that they had received a promotion in their

present position. The remaining 15 participants shared that they had not and that it does

80

impact their motivation. Four then added that they have further developed themselves to

“self-motivate.” All 20 of the participants responded that advancement is a motivator for

them but several questioned whether they were in the right field, or whether they had to

take matters into their own hands through training and even looking for other

opportunities.

No, because the next step would be the director’s job. Am one step away from the

top and I am not interested in the director job. (Participant 1, male)

No, and I have to build myself in my own way through training. Motivates me to

do better, the agency does not do it. (Participant 2, male)

Yes, I was promoted within my first year. Yes, it impacts my motivation.

(Participant 3, female)

No, but the opportunity is there. (Participant 4, male)

Yes, I have had two promotions. Yes, there is power in being able to reach a new

milestone and everybody is expected to progress and move up. (Participant 5,

female)

No, I would like to move up but right now I am not sure if local government… I

am questioning what field I want to be in right now. (Participant 7, female)

We do have regular postings available but they are not things that I am interested

in. It does impact my motivation, but for people that are looking to move around

in certain areas there are opportunities. That is not necessarily the way I want to

go in my career. (Participant 8, female)

81

I have had a chance to learn and grow and things of that nature will help me for

when I make that next move. So advancement in a personal development sense.

(Participant 12, female)

Theme 2: Advancement is a goal but not necessarily immediate. Five

participants had already received promotions and stated that they were encouraged to

advance but the remaining majority had not. Among those not yet promoted, however,

there appeared to be some uncertainty as to whether they were in the right career field

and acknowledgment that they could advance if they wanted to. One respondent likened

training and professional development opportunities to advancement and found this to be

an important motivator.

3. Recognition – Q4

While recognition was interpreted differently by several respondents as detailed

below, 18 of the participants indicated that it is important to them and it appeared that

recognition could motivate them to do even more.

My staff value the support and feel protected and have the tools to get the job

done. And across the agency. My superior also because I have tried to resign and

they do not want to let me go and they constantly reach out to me to make sure I

have the tools. I am not talking about a plaque or something like that. (Participant

1, male)

No, not in District of Columbia government. I have to self-motivate and the

people around me because at the end it’s about the people that we serve.

(Participant 2, male)

82

Sometimes. Yes, it does impact my motivation. (Participant 3, female)

By my boss, I do. I get a lot of e-mails... Makes me want to continue and to take

more training… it makes me want to do more. (Participant 6, male)

Yes, at times. I would get recognition from my supervisor saying the activity was

well put together. I am not really big on recognition. (Participant 7, female)

It does impact my motivation because it makes me feel like on a day to day basis

they actually care about what I am doing. (Participant 8, female)

I will tell you that I will go above and beyond for the people that are more

appreciative of the work then I am for those less appreciative. (Participant 9,

female)

No, definitely not. It is definitely important. It is kind of discouraging when you

work so hard… (Participant 11, female)

I do from my immediate supervisor. I do not think that we get the same

recognition from the top... Affirmation is important, it is nice to know that what

you are doing meets the approval of the person immediately above your boss, to

let you know how you are contributing to the overall mission. (Participant 12,

female)

I do not want others to be credited for my work. I don’t need to get credit but I do

not want other people to get credit for my work. (Participant 18, male)

Theme 3: A little recognition goes a long way. Eighteen respondents felt

recognition was important to them but, interestingly, recognition could consist of an e-

mail of thanks or verbal communication. Several participants stated that they wanted their

83

superior to notify their superior – “recognition from the top” seemed to be lacking and

craved. Two participants claimed that recognition was not important to them, and two

others proclaimed – “just don’t give others credit for my work.”

4. Responsibility – Q6

Sixteen of the respondents concluded that they have high levels of responsibility,

with most saying that they could even take on more. Three of the respondents indicated

that while their levels of responsibility are high, they do not feel that they are trusted.

There is always room for improvement, I could do more... (Participant 1, male)

I would like some more responsibility. (Participant 3, female)

A lot, the span of control is too broad. I have over 25 people reporting to me and

it is not effective way for performance management. (Participant 5, female)

I wish certain people would trust more in their employees and at the same time I

wish that managerial level would be more engaged with what the frontline staff is

doing. They are really good with delegating. My level of responsibility is a lot...

(Participant 9, female)

There are certain things that I feel like I am given too much responsibility for…

(Participant 10, female)

I think I have a lot of responsibility but it kind of goes underappreciated or not

valued as much it is kind of played out like I have not much responsibility.

(Participant 11, female)

The position did not have any built in responsibility but I sought out opportunities

for leadership. (Participant 14, female)

84

I think that my level of responsibility is vast and I look forward to it increasing

because I have a personal investment in advancing myself but for those that I

serve. (Participant 15, male)

I think again it depends on the environment. In school, I have received

recognition. It is more difficult in the work environment because you are not

necessarily in a position to create your own project. If you do well, you do well

and you hopefully get recognized for that. (Participant 17, female)

It is high. But I do not have enough autonomy to make it as impactful as it could

be. (Participant 18, male)

Theme 4: More responsibility desired. As mentioned beforehand, 16 of the

participants valued responsibility and while they already believed their level of

responsibility was high, they appeared to welcome more. Several respondents added that

they wanted to be trusted to do more and appreciated for having so much responsibility.

There were, however, two respondents that indicated they had too much responsibility,

not allowing them to manage or perform effectively.

5. Work itself – Q5

The nature of the work done received high levels of enthusiasm in the responses

received, second to the responses to the achievement question.

I really like it. It’s dynamic. You are always doing something. Big opportunity to

innovate and do things differently. Such a large area and touch parts of the

organization in a good way. You never get bored. (Participant 1, male)

85

It is hard because we are working with kids that are underprivileged. The

underprivileged community because they are not the issue but generations before

them and they are paying the price. (Participant 2, male)

I like it. Sometimes I feel that I have reached the point of growing or learning. But

most days I am challenged and that is why I love the job. (Participant 3, female)

The work that I do is very crucial work from all generations from 0-99 – all

populations. It is rewarding. You can have a positive effect on people’s lives, it is

inspiring. (Participant 5, female)

I love the work itself…. have the opportunity to rarely but occasionally look into

some of my own ideas is very rewarding and exciting. (Participant 10, female)

I think it is definitely important work, this is an important field. (Participant 11,

female)

It is pretty interesting and varied. I like the work. It is unique and a lot of

interacting with people. It gives me an opportunity to use a lot of different skills

that I have. (Participant 12, female)

I enjoy it. I think it is important because the work is actually interesting and

important to the public. (Participant 18, male)

Theme 5: The nature of the work is important. Millennials appeared to tie the

nature of the work itself to their public service orientation. As government workers they

all stated that they liked their work. It is “hard” but they stated that they were in

“important” fields.

6. Salary – Q8

86

Eight participants indicated they were not receiving fair compensation for the

work they do and 6 added that it impacts their motivation. Two of the 8 participants that

said they were fairly compensated added that they realized that government salaries are

lower than the private sector.

I know governments don’t pay as well. I intended to leave law school and work in

nonprofits so my perspective may be skewed. My sister works in a law firm down

the street and makes triple what I make, but I am only expected to work 40 hours.

So there is a give and take. (Participant 12, female)

Theme 6: Money isn’t everything. Despite literature that described their focus

on salary, Millennials in the study acknowledged compensation was low, but they were

largely aware of the “limitations” of government work and did not express great concern.

7. Policy and Administration – Q15, Q17, Q18

Existing policies – Q15

Six respondents indicated that they understood their workplace administrative

policies and were in agreement with them. The remaining 14 respondents were not in

agreement with the policies.

No. I do not think there are clear and transparent policies. I guess a lot of times

we operate on the fly and it changes almost daily. (Participant 4, male)

No. I guess some of the internal and external policies can be adjusted according to

the situation or who is connected to who or who is close to who – and you see that

a lot across the government. …that has an impact on the workforce and

87

productivity. It is a challenge to do your job and that affects motivation.

(Participant 1, male)

Job Security – Q18

Eleven participants felt that they had job security. The remainder had quite

opposite feelings based on their negative comments to include:

No, I go to work every day as if it was my last day. I am always ready for any

decision. (Participant 2, male)

No, and I would think that you want to have job security and not knowing that

one day may be your last (Participant 6, male)

It is one of those things from day to day… (Participant 8, female)

You never know when this will be your last day. (Participant 11, female)

Theme 7: Job security is not as critical a concern. The nine that expressed they

did not have job security seemed to attribute it to the nature of government work and

politics and not an impetus to find employment elsewhere.

Work life balance – Q17

All but three of the respondents indicated that they do have work/life balance and

that it is very important.

It can be better. It more because of me and not the working conditions. I have to

balance that better. I am a workaholic and I could probably do better, and do more

social activities. And it is ironic because I always try to get my staff to have more

balance but I do not have it myself. It is a choice. (Participant 1, male)

88

Not as much as my peers that do the same thing in my profession. Closer to no.

(Participant 5, female)

No. I feel like I don’t since I have been working there. Yes, it is important to me.

(Participant 7, female)

Theme 8: Work/life balance is critical. Millennials seemed to place extremely

high value on work life balance. While this “hygiene” does not appear in Herzberg’s

factors, this new generation of workers could place life balance under the heading of

motivators given the value they place on it.

8. Technical Supervision – Q13

All but 3 participants believed they had the appropriate level of technical

supervision. Four added that there are other things they would like to learn, but they

believed they did have the appropriate level of support. Of those that responded

negatively, one stated that it was assumed that because she is young she is

technologically savvy, however, she did not feel her skills were strong enough to do the

required task so she had to learn it.

9. Interpersonal Relationships with Peers - Q12

Seventeen participants had good relationships with peers. Two of the participants

that stated their relationships were poor:

That is challenging because I guess they have different perceptions of what a

manager is and what a senior manager is and I think they are focused on the

authority and power and benefits, but they have a different perception of what a

manager is. Your success depends on the team and as a senior manager you

89

cannot be rated a 5 and your subordinates a 2, your success is directly correlated

to them. If you do not provide the tools, you don’t coach or train part of your job

is not being accomplished. (Participant 1, male)

Fair… my peers are much older than I am and don’t perform at the same level that

I do and their errors affect my work and the work of the agency and I cannot do

anything about it because they are my peers. (Participant 18, male)

10. Interpersonal Relationships with Subordinates – Q10

Four individuals that participated did not have any subordinates. One participant

stated that the relationship with subordinates was fair. Four participants indicated they

had fair relationships with superiors and cited a lack of communication for this.

They do not communicate, they underestimate me. (Participant 2, male)

They are not approachable. (Participant 8, female)

11. Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors – Q11

Four of the participants had a fair relationship with their superior, or superiors,

and researcher noticed that these four were all stating that it is their superior’s superior

that is the source of the challenges.

Very good with my immediate superior. With regard to my superior – not good at

all. (Participant 12, female)

Good for my immediate superior and fair to poor with my not so immediate

supervisor. (Participant 14, female)

90

Table 8 Summary of State of Interpersonal Relationships

Participant No.

Peers Subordinates Superiors

1 Poor Good Good 2 Good Good Fair 3 Good N/A Fair 4 Fair Fair Good 5 Good Good Good 6 Good N/A Good 7 Good Good Good 8 Good Good Good 9 Good Good Good 10 Good Good Good 11 Good Good Good 12 Good Good Good 13 Good Good Good 14 Good Good Good 15 Good Good Good 16 Fair N/A Fair 17 Good N/A Good 18 Fair Good Fair 19 Good Good Good 20 good Good Good

Theme 9: Interpersonal relationships at work are not as critical. While the

respondents believed their relationships were largely favorable, they did not appear to

have significant weight in whether or not they found satisfaction in work.

12. Working conditions – Q16

Six of the respondents stated that their working conditions were fair, two stating

environmental factors. Most stated that their expectations, in terms of the physical space,

were low because they are in the public sector.

Resources – Q14

91

Seventeen of the participant stated that they had the adequate resources to do their

jobs. Three did not believe they did. Resources were interpreted as supplies, access to

technology and training in most instances.

13. Other – Q1

When asked whether other generational cohorts in their workplace have a good

understanding of what factors motivate them and their Millennial colleagues, all

participants believed that there is a generational gap in perspectives and a lack of

understanding of Millennials. Of these respondents, 3 believed that there were some that

understood them, if they were skilled in organizational development and/or had children

that were Millennials.

Not necessarily. Huge gap between generations. How they relate to the job,

ownership, motivation and technology, in the process of growing through the

organization and career path. (Participant 1, male)

No, they don’t. I think we have a gap between different generations and it causes

a lot of issues because people have this ownership and Millennials think they

deserve certain things and the people that were there before feel like they have

been there. I have seen both sides before being a manager and now. You see a lot

of resistance (Participant 2, male)

Sometimes I think that they don’t. It just seems that sometimes there seems to be

division between people that have been in government for many years and

Millennials so catering to both can be difficult. You cannot please everybody.

Some people, well some are wonderful, are comfortable where they are.

92

Millennials are constantly trying to move on or move up so they are looked at as

if they are trying too hard or stepping on people’s toes. (Participant 3, female)

I do not. I think that in District government there is a culture and there are

professionals that have only worked in the District government so they are

accustomed to the agency culture and used to way things have always been done.

Our generation brings a different kind of energy but it is still inclusive.

(Participant 5, female)

I do not think that they do. When I worked at a smaller agency they did because

we didn’t have a generational gap. The older generation, the one that is about to

retire, do not understand what drives us. (Participant 6, male)

I think that if I look at older generations vs Millennials that are now working there

is that type of a gap. People that are older… things were done differently and

there is a difference in technology and evolution of things and I think there is a

still a gap that needs to be bridged so that things can be done inter-generationally

and we can all work together so that we can all not only do we perform well but

you can also see Millennials move up in their careers in leadership and so forth.

(Participant 7, female)

No, I do not. I feel like people that are a bit older have a tendency to see things

differently in the workplace. In our field of work I see laziness and complacency,

to be honest. They are set in their ways and do not care to excel in the workplace

and are comfortable where they are. The majority of my generation want to do

well and you can see a difference, the way we approach our work and the way we

93

position ourselves and generally the way we operate. The way we dress, the

quality of our work… (Participant 8, female)

Some yes and some don’t – I find it personal to the person instead of the

generation. I would say that my manager level staff, at least the ones I have had

the most interaction with, typically are 1 to 2 generations before me – are more in

tune when they are parents to children my age or are more, how do I say this, in

tune to organizational development and organizational growth so they are more

seeking to grow the workforce in that way. So they are listening to things in order

to grow to help retain staff. I would say that those people are few and far between.

But the ones who are in tune to that are really good about asking their employees

what about professional development are you interested in and what can we do to

help. I have one of my three managers that I work with that really cares about

that. But then again, I would say, the ones that have children that are young in the

workforce are also more in tune as they are experiencing it within their family.

(Participant 9, female)

Some yes and others do not. I don’t know if it is a generational thing – yes it is a

generational thing because obviously our bosses are generally older than us and

you know some of the motivational factors they use are not always effective.

(Participant 10, female)

I think there is a difference between us and some of the older colleagues we have.

We have a little different expectations going into the workforce than the older

generation. A lot of the older colleagues seem to be content with where they are. I

94

don’t know if that is because we are fresh out of school or what but a lot of us

seem more ambitious and kind of like we are – I don’t want to say we are losing

our motivation here but it is a little stifling. (Participant 11, female)

I think they have some idea – the older generations. It is slightly different because

people in my age group either don’t have families yet or are starting families so

our motivations are more about our own careers and developing ourselves

whereas the older already saw themselves in their careers in their early thirties.

Motivations are a little bit the same, i.e. money but a little different in what you

hope to get out of your job. (Participant 12, female)

I think so, we are lucky with the leadership that we have in this office, they seem

very modern and progressive and open to feedback on top of the policies already

being not overly strict or stringent or old school. It is a very modern office.

(Participant 13, male)

Yes, some of them do – it is more of an individual or maybe socioeconomic thing

rather than generational. Some of those that are older do understand – we have

shared experiences. (Participant 15, female)

No. I don’t think mostly because we are considered the lost generation. The

morals and values that caused them to work in the public workspace are different

then what motivates us. (Participant 16, female)

No. I do not think they do because the government and the system that is in place

in terms as far as rewarding motivated or high performers is not really existent or

95

strong, the system is set up to reward employees who just don’t do enough to not

get terminated but have done enough to be disruptive. (Participant 18, male)

I believe there is a big gap in understanding us. They seem to want things to

remain the same. They expect us to do their work too. (Participant 20, male)

Theme 10: Millennials believe there is a generational gap. As was

overwhelming evidenced by the quotes above, the participants did believe there is a lack

of understanding of their generational cohort. This finding will be discussed in more

detail in Chapter 5.

Research Question 2: Are there specific strategies Millennial public servants can

recommend to positively motivate and retain them?

Below are strategies that were provided by the participants in their responses,

organized by the themes that appeared most critical.

Theme 1: Importance of achievement. Provide opportunities for

achievement/accomplishments. There are a variety of ways expressed by participants

such as (a) more learning and skill development; (b) empowerment and trust to get the

job done; and (c) opportunities to innovate and think differently.

Theme 3: A little recognition goes a long way. Sixteen of the respondents

indicated the importance of the recognition they receive.

Several participants mentioned that even e-mails “make them want to do more”.

Recognition from their supervisor was important, and their supervisor’s supervisor,

lacking. “…He takes the time to let our director know who did what... It does impact my

motivation because it makes me feel like on a day to day basis they actually care about

96

what I am doing.” “Kudos in a staff meeting. One of my managers took his team out for

recent accomplishments to recognize people.”

Theme 4: More responsibility desired. While most indicated that they had a

great deal of responsibility, and several thought it may be too much, having significant

responsibility motivates this cohort. Many suggested they can be trusted, empowered and

given even more.

Theme 5: The nature of the work is important. All Millennials liked the work

they do and thought it was important. Given the significance of that sentiment, it appears

that ensuring that they feel they are contributing in a significant way and serving the

public is important.

Theme 8: Work/life balance is critical. Allowing this generational cohort the

opportunity to balance their busy lives was important to all participants. Most seemed to

enjoy the predictability of their 9-5, government jobs. While most seemed to have this

flexibility, three noted that they needed more flexibility but added that this may be their

own doing.

Theme 10: Millennials are not understood in the workplace. There was a

unanimous sentiment that Millennials are not understood in the workplace. Offering a

myriad of reasons and perspectives, it is clear that they want to be understood, but are not

offering many suggestions on how this can be accomplished. One participant stated that

her leadership was open to feedback, a sound strategy for public administrators. Another

stated that those with more organizational development training were able to narrow the

generational gap.

97

Summary

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to gain an understanding of the

factors that motivate Millennial public servants based on the gap in research on these

workers, and, in particular, providing their own point of view. The responses obtained

from the interview sessions were rather similar, however, given the small sample of 20, it

is not appropriate to offer overarching findings on the Millennial public worker. Based on

the responses analyzed, both male and female respondents offered similar views. In

instances where outlier quotes were offered, they added to the understanding that these

workers, like all others, are individual people and should not be subject to stereotypes or

generalizations. It appears that Millennials, despite the volumes written on their cohort,

are much like other workers. They are positively motivated by the factors deemed

“motivators” by Herzberg and while they may be dissatisfied by those factors deemed

“hygienes” this does not contribute to their opinion of the work they do and its impact.

This chapter offered an overview of the pilot study, setting, participant

demographics that led to the actual data collection, analysis and results of the interviews

conducted on 20 Millennial government workers. Issues of trustworthiness were also

presented. Chapter 5 will interpret the study findings and delineate the limitation of the

study, recommendations for further research and the potential impact these findings, and

further research can have on the public sector workforce.

98

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

As the Millennial generation entered the public sector workforce, they began to

outnumber the three older generations that preceded them. Their numbers alone signal

that change is coming to the workplace. However, the lack of scholarly research on this

generation has contributed to the lack of understanding of these workers. This research

examination of factors that motivate Millennial workers in the public sector was

conducted to begin to address the gap in the literature and provide their perspective

through the use of hermeneutic phenomenology. Other methodologies of the qualitative

nature were considered, most extensively the case study and grounded theory. However,

the Millennial perspective compelled the selected discipline.

While this study was limited by the size of the criterion sample of 20, the findings

offer a beginning glimpse of what factors are of more importance to these workers and

suggested strategies for public administrators to implement. Herzberg’s (1959) research,

despite the many other motivational theories available and the extensive criticism lobbed

at the two-factor theory for almost five decades, continued to be relevant as evidenced in

Sachau’s (2007) call to “resurrect” the theory (p. 377).

The 20 interviews conducted were intended to provide the Millennial participants,

public servants in the District of Columbia government, the opportunity to address each

of the motivator and hygiene factors and resulted in themes that address the research

questions and provide important insight into the minds of this large generation of

workers.

99

The findings of this study are consistent with Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor theory

and supportive of his research, as these workers were positively and negatively impacted

by the same factors that impact the larger population of public servants. There were some

exceptions and some areas, such as job security and work-life balance, that appear to be

more heavily weighted in terms of priorities—with job security not being as important

but work/life balance being of utmost importance—which differentiates this generational

cohort from others in the public sector workplace. However, this could be typical of any

new generation entering the workplace.

The finding of unanimous sentiment expressed by Millennials public servants,

that there is a generational gap between them and their coworkers, is important. While

generational studies, such as Montefferante’s (2010) and Salahuddin’s (2010)

examination of four generations in the workplace, concluded that there are unique

perspectives and noticeable differences, these studies did not highlight large gaps in

intergenerational understanding and the largely negative perceptions held by Millennials

of older workers and impact that negative perceptions held by older workers has had on

Millennials.

This final chapter will interpret the study findings, limitations, recommendations,

and further delineate suggestions for further scholarly inquiry. The importance of

understanding factors that motivate Millennials in the public sector will be further

discussed as well as the need for public administrators to understand these workers to

ensure they are positively motivated in ways that will impact their performance and

retention. This chapter will conclude with recommendations for significant additional

100

studies and the potential impact further research will have on society. This generational

cohort of 83.1 million individuals and a third of the public sector workforce are important

contributors to our local, state, and national governments. The results of this research will

begin to affect positive social change by providing insight and data to public

administrators charged with improving the productivity and motivation of their

workforce. This study is intended as foundational analysis and underscores the critical

scholarly gap of research that helps administrators better understand these Millennial

public servants as they will be a significant majority component of the workforce in the

near future.

Interpretation of the Findings

The purpose of this study was to analyze the motivations and perceptions of

Millennial public servants to provide insight, recommendations, and potential strategies

to better understand and engage this large cohort of workers. The use of the

phenomenological research methodology was intentional to address the gap in the

literature that sought the perspectives of this most recent cohort of public servants. The

gap in peer-reviewed literature sparked interest in these workers, as well as the plethora

of literature that ascribed characteristics, both positive and negative, to a quarter of the

workforce.

The factors that motivate Millennial public servants appear to be consistent with

Herzberg’s (1966) findings. Sachau (2007) described Herzberg’s work and theory as

positive psychology. Sachau described Herzberg’s findings that workers feel good about

motivator factors for long periods of time but hygiene factors for short periods (p. 380).

101

“Hygiene needs escalate, but motivator needs do not. Motivator factors are addictive, and

hygiene factors are not” (p. 380). While this study did not seek to provide a hierarchy to

those motivators as Herzberg did (See Figure 4), based on the content-rich descriptions

offered by the responses, it is evident that achievement, recognition, work itself,

responsibility, advancement, and growth provide positive motivation to these workers as

they are all related to psychological growth. For example, some of the participants had

negative experiences concerning recognition. Their responses, however, indicated that if

they were given more responsibility and recognition, they would do more. None of the

respondents indicated that if they were paid more, had a better office, better peer

relationships, and so forth, they would do more.

Figure 5. Herzberg’s (1974) “Classic” Profile of Factors in An Organization.

AchievementRecognitionWork ItselfResponsibilityAdvancementGrowth

Company Policy and AdministrationSupervisionInterpersonal RelationsWorking ConditionsSalaryStatusSecurity

102

The most salient themes identified from the data provided from the participants

appear in Table 9:

Table 9 Themes

Theme Factor 1 Importance of Achievement Achievement 2 Advancement is a goal but not

necessarily immediate Advancement

3 A little recognition goes a long way Recognition 4 More responsibility desired Responsibility 5 The nature of work is important Work Itself 6 Money isn’t everything Salary 7 Job security is not as critical a

concern Policy & Administration

8 Work/life balance is critical Policy & Administration

9 Working conditions are good enough for government

Working Conditions

10 There is a generational gap

Bell et al. (2011) described Millennial workers as ambitious and having high

levels of achievement. The participants studied did have interest in accomplishments and

achievement, but most stated that their achievements afforded them the opportunity to

“help others,” “make a difference,” and offer innovative solutions. Herzberg (1966)

placed achievement as the top factor impacting job attitudes (p. 112). In a study of 1,685

employees, when asked what events led to satisfaction or extreme dissatisfaction in their

work, Herzberg reported that the key element leading to dissatisfaction was not being

able to do their best work.

While the unrealistic expectation of pace and advancement appeared to be pre-

eminent in Deloitte’s (2010) findings, one third of those studied herein had been

103

promoted, and the remaining participants acknowledged that opportunities were there but

they were either not interested in the next level of position or they were not sure if they

wanted to further pursue a career in their current field.

Recognition was of importance to 18 of the 20 participants in this study.

Thompson and Gregory (2012) had termed Millennials as “needy” and in search of

validation at work and recognition (p. 241). While acknowledging that recognition does

motivate them to do more, the types of recognition desired—an e-mail or

acknowledgment from the boss’ boss—could be typical of any worker.

The desire for more responsibility was mentioned by 16 of the 20 participants,

despite most believing that they had very high levels of responsibility at the current time.

These findings appear to be consistent with Deloitte’s (2010) study, although it is

assumed that Millennials seek more responsibility because of their constant quest for

advancement. The participants herein stated that increased responsibility was wanted

because they believed they could accomplish more if they were empowered and trusted in

the organizations.

Ng et al. (2010) identified Millennials as wanting to “make a life” and being more

concerned with the social aspects of work (p. 289). The Millennials that participated in

this study stated that they were looking for more responsibility, and all stated they “liked”

or “loved” their work. The responses to their opinions of work itself focused on the

“important work” and “opportunity to give back,” which appeared to be compatible with

the “civic minded” perspective attributed to them by Raines and Ewing (2006).

104

Concerning the hygiene factors, and in alignment with the literature reviewed,

Millennials appeared to be informed on the government pay scales and had aligned their

expectations accordingly (Ng et al., 2010). While 18 participants felt that they were not

fairly compensated, it did not appear that this was a deterrent to continuing to work in

their present positions, rather it afforded the flexibility for work/life balance and or the

opportunity to do important work.

Concerning policies and administration as identified by Herzberg (1959), the

participants expressed dissatisfaction with existing policies because of the volatility in

leadership. After elections, and/or when new leaders are brought in, policies change and,

therefore, there is a lot of change, uncertainty, and even stagnation. Job security and

work/life balance were added to this hygiene factor; however, they could also be

considered working conditions. The policies of the government and how they are

implemented address the issue of job security and life balance.

Most of the participants were “term” employees. These are defined as

“an appointment lasting more than one year but less than four years, with a specific

expiration date” (USAjobs.gov, 2015, p.1). Eleven of these term employees believed

they had job security given their level of performance. Concerns about job security were

more squarely attributed to the changes in leadership and the turnover rates as they

perceived them.

Work/life balance was important to everyone in the study, as was found in the

extensive literature reviewed on this topic (Bannon et al., 2010; Bell et al., 2011; Gesell,

2010). The desire to not work long hours and have flexibility to address family issues

105

were highlighted by participants. The Millennials studied herein described opting for

lower pay given the ability to have “regular” work hours.

The study participants believed they had the appropriate technical supervision and

working conditions to do their jobs. The expectations were again tempered with

government work or a government setting. None of the participants mentioned the need

for newer technology or equipment despite the literature reviewed that stressed the

interest Millennials have in the latest technologies (Monteferrante, 2010).

Interpersonal relationships with peers, subordinates, and superiors were largely

good among the participants surveyed. Suleman and Nelson (2011) highlighted the need

for Millennials to socialize in the workplace and work collaboratively. Myers and

Sadaghiani (2010) suggested that Millennials lacked the ability to work well with others

and value and respect their colleagues (p. 225).

The resounding belief of participants that there is a generational gap in their

workplace, that they are largely not understood by their older colleagues, was the most

significant finding of this study. While some of those that responded believed that some

of their colleagues, those with organizational development orientation or being parents of

Millennials, had a better understanding of the factors that motivated them in the

workplace, it was clear that there was a disconnect impacting the workforce negatively.

In their responses, participants offered suggestions for their colleagues such as being

more open to change, empowering their younger colleagues, trusting, respecting, and

jointly problem-solving; it is clear that the lack of understanding impacts workers on both

sides.

106

Herzberg (1987) also stated that organizations that invest more in hygiene factors

will not find a corresponding return in employee satisfaction. However, by investing in

the actual jobs through job enrichment, there is a corresponding increase in motivation.

Job enrichment adds responsibility, achievement, recognition, growth, learning, and

advancement and is “not a one-time proposition but a continuous management function”

(Herzberg, 1987, p. 117). The findings of this study support this. Adding components that

increase responsibility and the opportunity to contribute to the “important work” they do

is important to Millennials. When the members of other generations, whether superiors,

peers, or subordinates, understand that all employees need to feel valued and able to do

their best work, motivation improves as does job satisfaction in the workplace.

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of this study include the sample size of 20, which limits the ability

to make broad generalizations based upon the findings detailed herein. While this sample

size is typical of a phenomenological study, the desire to bring light to the perspectives of

Millennials outweighed this concern.

Additionally, I sought to obtain a sample that was similar to the composition of

the federal work force, which is 43.2% female, however the current study included 60%

female participants (US Office of Personnel Management, 2015, p.1). The responses of

the males and females were analyzed to determine outliers and if the large percentage of

females in the present study impacted the results. Based on this examination, there were

no outliers that were either male or female and general agreement in all of the responses.

In addition, the study was blinded with regard to race. The sample size included 9 Blacks,

107

4 Hispanics, 1 Persian and 6 White individuals which is also dissimilar to the federal

workforce which in 2014 included 18.1% Black, 8.4% Hispanics and 64.7% White (U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, 2015, p. 1). Again, the responses that were outliers

were not attributable to any one race and, therefore, the impact of the decision to blind

the sample to race and gender is sound.

The District of Columbia government holds Mayoral elections every four years,

as is customary in most governments at all levels. Interviews were conducted six months

into the new administration, which could have impacted the perceptions and opinions of

study participants. As is typical, changes in administration include swift changes in

leadership, which was evident from responses received from participants. For example:

Participant 8 – “we are going through a huge shift with having a new director and

we are moving towards his vision but we are not there yet.”

Participant 9 – “With new leadership came a push for new updated policies so

there is no enforcement because we are kind of stuck in between two sets of policies.”

A limitation of this study included that most of the employees were term

employees in the District of Columbia government. While this is a standard form of

employment according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, term employment

adds uncertainty to the workplace and increases job insecurity. This is an important factor

that can skew an employee’s level of commitment. Ng et al. (2010) suggested that

Millennials are not interested in long-term employment commitments, so perhaps these

term arrangements are ideal for this generational cohort.

108

Interviews were conducted both in person and via telephone due to participants’

scheduling challenges. Seven participants were afforded the opportunity to be

interviewed by phone. In all but one of those telephonic interviews, the responses

received from participants were lengthier and contained more content.

The District of Columbia government provided the setting for this study and

employees from six agencies were represented. While a larger sample and the use of

other governmental organizations, such as the federal government would have increased

the data obtained, the District of Columbia government provided a good proxy given its

state/local status and proximity to federal workers.

Recommendations

The experiences shared by the participants afforded the ability to begin to have a

better understanding of this generational cohort and how they are faring in the public

sector. The positive responses received around the work itself, demonstrating that all of

those that participated either liked or loved their work and how it made them feel, gives

an indication that this large cohort of employees are enjoying the work that they are

doing and the contributions they are making. While the results of this study are limited

and inconclusive in terms of whether this generation is any different than the other three

in the public sector workplace, this was not the intent of this study. What is clear is that

there are motivators and hygiene factors that, as found by Herzberg through the past five

decades, these workers receive positive and negative satisfaction from some of the same

factors.

109

The recommendations for further study include that scholars need to devote more

time and research to study this generation. A case study is recommended for further

research allowing for more in depth analysis with identified variables, such as being in a

career job classification vs term employment. Additionally, Millennial public servants

from other jurisdictions in the United States could offer compelling insight and perhaps

different findings from the present study. A larger study, perhaps of the quantitative

design, could survey Millennials to gather data on their levels of satisfaction in the

workplace. The researcher also found the positive characteristics of Millennials, which

study participants appeared to agree with, could be more closely associated with high

levels of Perry’s (1996) public service motivation theory. Studies that analyze Millennials

and their public service motivation scores could offer more insight into whether this

generation is more suitable for public sector related careers.

The shared belief among participants that Millennial government workers were

not understood by other generational cohorts does suggest that further studies are needed

to determine whether this is a typical generational gap as is seen by every new cohort or

if there is an increasing gap in intergenerational understanding. Additionally, as

suggested by Levenson (2010), longitudinal studies are needed, as are intergenerational

studies that examine the perspectives of the multiple generations and ways in which they

can be jointly motivated, if at all.

While the present phenomenological study offers limited insight into what

Millennials think public administrators can do to better understand them, the insight

110

offered by this study are useful groundwork in beginning to ensure that one-quarter of the

public sector workforce is better understood, engaged, motivated and valued.

Implications

This research was intended to begin to fill a gap in studies that examine the

Millennial public worker and how they are faring in the workplace. The participants in

this small study shared the factors that motivate them in the workplace. While these

factors are not much different than those that motivate the workforce, it is clear that they

feel that there is a gap in this understanding and that they are different from their public

sector colleagues. The key for public administrators is to ensure that all workers feel that

they are understood and that their preferences and contributions matter, but it is difficult

to begin to put strategies in place without a thorough understanding of these workers. The

impact of having this understanding could be significant and can change the dynamics of

the public sector workforce. Espinoza et al. (2011) urged leaders to “suspend” any bias

they may have towards Millennials to become effective managers (p. 21).

Transformational leaders with an interest in understanding the needs of their workers as

individuals are key to gaining the trust and support of Millennial workers (Thompson &

Gregory, 2012, p. 243).

Through their words, study participants suggested that they be trusted more in the

workplace and provided more opportunities to develop themselves which is consistent

with Herzberg’s (1974) suggestion that job enrichment is the key to the employee’s

psychological development. Increasing accountability and taking away barriers or

impediments to excel and do more are important strategies to engage Millennial workers.

111

Also, providing acknowledgment (even via e-mail) is important to these public servants.

They are adamant that the nature of their public sector work is important; now they need

to feel important too.

Reflections of Researcher

After a 20 year professional career as a public servant in state, local and federal

government, and as a consultant to international governments, my passion for ensuring

that government works; respect and admiration for those who serve compelled the pursuit

of the doctoral degree and more specifically the present study. As the global environment

becomes more complex and interpersonal interactions are increasingly limited due to new

technologies, the human element of the public sector workforce continues to fascinate

and inspire further inquiry. Having had the opportunity to work with all four generations

in the public workplace, I continue to be amazed by their dedication and service. In the

end, workers of all ages are individual beings with their personal preferences, experiences

and world view. It is increasingly important for public administrators to know the people

that they lead and to ensure that they feel they are understood and appreciated.

Conclusion

There is a large segment of the public workforce that may not feel fully

understood by their colleagues. Whether this is typical of any new generation entering the

workforce or not, this lack of understanding can muddy a public administrator’s ability to

lead effectively. This study begins to shed light on the preferences and lived experiences

of Millennials by seeking to determine what motivational factors impact these workers.

While the sample size is small and the findings are largely consistent with the results of

112

Herzberg’s (1966) studies on motivators and hygiene factors, these new entrants must

feel their potential, input and efforts are understood and appreciated. Given the

importance of effectively engaging 83.1 million workers, scholars must begin to address

this gap in the literature. And given the increased constraints given economic conditions

and volatility it is imperative for public administrators to know there is a generational gap

and to determine ways to more effectively engage all of our workforces.

113

References

Allsobrook, C. (2014). Phenomenology as first philosophy. South African Journal of

Philosophy, 33(3), 321-329.

AMWA Journal. (2012). Top 10 Characteristics of the Four Generations Currently in the

Workforce. American Medical Writers Association Journal, 27(3), 143.

Andert, D. (2011). Alternating leadership as a proactive organizational intervention:

Addressing the needs of the Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and Millennials.

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 8(4), 67-85.

Baah-Dartey, K., Amoako, G. K. (2011). Application of Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor

theory in assessing and understanding employee motivation at work: A Ghanaian

perspective. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(9), 1-8.

Bannon, S., Ford, K., & Meltzer, L. (2011). Understanding Millennials in the workplace.

The CPA Journal, 81(11), 61-68.

Bell, N., Connell, J.A., & McMinn, N. (2011). How will the next generation change the

business world? A report on a survey. Insights Journal, 1, 45-55.

Beinhoff, L. (2011). The Millennials: A survey of the most cited literature. Choice, 48,

2225-2231.

Branscum, A.Y. & Sciaraffa, M. (2013). Changing Millennials' attitude toward older

adults. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(1), 18-22.

Bright, L. (2010). Why age matters in the work preferences of public employees: A

comparison of three age-related explanations. Public Personnel Management,

39(1), 1-11.

114

Chen, K., Yang, S., & Chen, M. (2010). Increasing national competitiveness in terms of

the human resource commercialization as well as delegation and empowerment of

the public sector. Journal of Global Business Management, 6(1), 1-9.

Childs, R.D., Gingrich, G., & Piller, M. (2010). The future workforce: Gen Y has arrived.

The Public Manager, 4, 21-23.

Chou, S.Y. (2012). Millennials in the workplace: A conceptual analysis of Millennials’

leadership and followership styles. International Journal of Human Resources

Studies, 2(2), 71-83.

Churchill, S.D., Wertz, F.J. (2014). The handbook of humanistic psychology: Leading

edges in theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Cook, C. (2015). State looks to attract more Millennial workers to public sector. The

Charleston Gazette, 1-4.

Cooney, A. (2011). Rigour and grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 17-22.

Council on Economic Advisers. (2014). 15 Economic facts about Millennials. October, 1-

49.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Deal, J.J., Altman, D.G., & Rogelberg, S.G. (2010). Millennials at work: What we know

and what we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 191-

199.

De Hauw, S. & De Vos, A. (2010). Millennials’ career perspective and psychological

contract expectations: Does the recession lead to lowered expectations? Journal of

115

Business Psychology, 25, 293-302.

Deloitte. (2009). Opening up the federal talent economy. Retrieved from

http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/human-capital/us-

fed-opening-up-the-federal-talent-economy-100914.pdf

Deloitte. (2010). Deloitte Millennial model: An approach to Gen Y readiness. Retrieved

from

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomUnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/F

ederal/us_fed_DeloitteMillennialModelAnapproachtoGenYReadiness%20_11241

0.pdf

Deloitte. (2015). Mind the Gaps: the 2015 Deloitte Millennial Survey. Retrieved from

http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-

Deloitte/gx-wef-2015-Millennial-survey-executivesummary.pdf

Deyoe, R. H. & Fox, T. L. (2012). Identifying strategies to minimize workplace conflict

due to generational differences. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 5, 1-

17.

Donaldson, S. (2008). The appeal of public service: Have we overlooked a simple way to

attract a new generation of public servants? The Public Manager, 37(3), 84-85.

Englander, M. (2012). The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological

human scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43, 13-35.

Espinoza, C., Ukleja, & M., Rusch, C. (2011). Core competencies for leading today’s

workforce. Leader to Leader, 59, 18-23.

Ferri Reed, J. (2014). Millennializing the workplace. The Journal for Quality &

116

Participation, 36 (4), 13-14.

Fry, R. (2015). Millennials surpass Gen Xers as the largest generation in the U.S. labor

force. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2015/05/11/Millennials-surpass-gen-xers-as-the-largest-generation-in-u-s-

labor-force/

Gardner, G. (1977). Is there a valid test of Herzberg's two-factor theory? Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 50(3), 197-204.

Georgellis, Y. & Tabvuma, V. (2010). Does public service motivation adapt? KYKLOS,

63(2), 176-191.

Gesell, I. (2010). How to lead when the generation gap becomes your everyday reality.

The Journal for Quality and Participation, 32(4), 21-24.

Glogowska, M., Young, P., & Lockyer, L. (2011). Propriety, process and purpose:

considerations of the use of the telephone interview method in an educational

research study. Higher Education, 62(1), 17-26

Hendricks, J.M., Cope, V.V. (2012). Generational diversity: what nurse managers need to

know. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(3), 717-725.

Hershatter, A. & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization

and management perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 211-223.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Motivate Employees? World, 87-90.

Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-Hygiene Profiles, Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18-

29.

Herzberg, F. (1987). "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?" Harvard

117

Business Review, 65(5), 109–120.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Hyun, S., & Oh, H. (2011). Re-examination of Herzberg's two-factor theory of

motivation in the Korean Army foodservice operations. Journal of Foodservice

Business Research, 14(2), 100-121.

Irvine, A. (2011). Duration, dominance and depth in telephone and face-to-face

interviews: A comparative exploration. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 10(3), 202-220.

Izawa, M.R., French, M.D. & Hedge, A. (2011). Shining new light on the Hawthorne

Illumination Experiments. Human Factors, 53(5), 528-547.

Johnson Controls. (2010). Generation Y and the workplace: Annual Report 2010.

Retrieved from http://www.haworth-

europe.com/en/content/download/8985/545674/file/Oxygenz-

Report_2010_EN.pdf

Kafle, N. P. (2011). Hermeneutic phenomenological research method simplified. Bodhi:

An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5(1), 181-200.

Kernaghan, K. (2011). Getting engaged: Public-service merit and motivation revisited.

Canadian Public Administration, 54(1), 1-21.

Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R. & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’ (lack of) attitude problem: An

empirical examination of generational effects on work attitudes. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 25, 265-279.

118

Lavoie-Tremblay, M., Pacquet, N., Duchesne, M., Santo, A., Gavrancic, A., Courcy, F. &

Gagnon, S. (2010). Retaining nurses and other hospital workers: An

intergenerational perspective of the work climate. Journal of Nursing

Scholarship, 42(4), 414-422.

Levenson, A.R. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An economist’s perspective.

Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 257-264.

Lippincott, J.K. (2010). Information Commons: Meeting Millennials’ Needs. Journal of

Library Administration, 50, 27-37.

Little, B. (2009). The Millennial generation and politics. Soundings, 42, 119-128.

Masibirigi, V. & Nienaber, H. (2011). Factors affecting the retention of Generation X

public servants: An exploratory study. Journal of Human Resource Management,

9(1), 44-54.

Maslow, A. (1948). Some theoretical consequences of basic need-gratification. Journal of

Personality, 48(16), 402-416.

Mason, M. 2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews.

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3), 1-14.

Mayo, E. (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization: Early Sociology of

Management and Organizations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Meriac, J., Woehr, D., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational differences in work ethic: An

examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of

Business Psychology, 25, 315-324.

McGlone, T., Spain, J., & McGlone, V. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility and the

119

Millennials. Journal of Education for Business, 86, 195-200.

Monteferrante, P. (2010). La generación net: Claves para entenderla. DEBATES IESA,

XV(4), 58-61.

Myers, K. & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication

perspective on Millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal

of Business Psychology, 24, 225-238.

National Chamber Foundation. (2012). The Millennial generation: Research Review.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1-36.

Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. (2010). New generation, great expectations:

field study of the Millennial generation. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 281-

292.

Nicholas, A. J. (2009). Generational perceptions: Workers and consumers. Journal of

Business & Economics Research, 7(10), 47-52.

Nielsen Company. (2014). Millennials – Breaking the myths. 1-39. Retrieved from

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2014/Millennials-breaking-the-

myths.html.

Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, (3rd Ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Perry, L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public

Administration Review, 50, 367-373.

Perry, J. (1996). Service Motivation: As assessment of construct reliability and validity.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.

120

Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next. Retrieved

from: http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/Millennials-confident-connected-

open-to-change.pdf

Pew Research Center. (2014). Millennials in adulthood: Detached from institutions,

networked with friends. Retrieved from

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2014/03/2014-03-07_generations-report-

version-for-web.pdf

Potter, L.E., von Hellens, L., & Nielsen, S. (2010). The practical challenges of case study

research: Lessons from the field. Qualitative Research on IT, 1-5.

Price Waterhouse Coopers. (2013). PwC’s NextGen: A global generational study.

Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/hr-management-

services/pdf/pwc-nextgen-study-2013.pdf

Pump. B. (2012). A new normal? American policymaking after the Great Recession.

Policy Studies Journal, 40(51), 27-40.

Raines, C., & Ewing, L. (2006). The art of connecting: How to overcome differences,

build rapport, and communicate effectively with anyone. New York, NY:

AMACON

Rein, L. (2014). Millennials exit the federal workforce as government jobs lose their

allure. The Washington Post. Retrieved from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/Millennials-exit-the-federal-workforce-

as-government-jobs-lose-their-allure/2014/12/15/ea3d4418-7fd4-11e4-9f38-

95a187e4c1f7_story.html

121

Roberts, K. (2012). The end of the long baby-boomer generation. Journal of Youth

Studies, 15(4), 479-497.

Romano, C., Hanish, J, Phillips, C. & Waggoner, M. (2010). The New Normal: Senior

Student Affairs Officers speak out about the budget cutting. New Directions for

Student Services, 129, 59-70.

Sachau, D. (2007). Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the

positive psychology movement. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4),

377-393.

Salahuddin, J. (2010). Generational differences impact on leadership style and

organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2), 1-6.

Sandri, G. & Bowen, C. (2011). Meeting employee requirements: Maslow’s hierarchy of

needs is still a reliable guide to motivating staff. Industrial Engineer, 43(10), 43-

48.

Sarringhaus, M. (2011). The great divide: Social Media’s role in bridging healthcare’s

generational shift. Journal of Healthcare Management, 56(4), 235-44.

Schoch, T. (2012). Turning the ship around with a four-generation crew. Information

Management.46 (4), 25-29.

Schultz, R. & Schwepker, C. (2012). Boomers vs. Millennials: Critical conflict regarding

sales culture, salesforce recognition, and supervisor expectations. International

Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 2(1), 32-41.

Shragay, D. & Tziner, A. (2011). The generational effect on the relationship between job

involvement, work satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Revista

122

de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 27(2), 143-157.

Simons, N. (2010). Leveraging generational work styles to meet business objectives.

Information Management, 44(1), 28-33.

Smith, J. & Clark, G. (2010). New games, different rules – Millennials are in town.

Journal of Diversity Management, 5(3), 1-11.

Stanley, D. (2010). Multigenerational workforce issues and their implications for

leadership in nursing. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 846-852.

Suleman, R., Nelson, B. (2011). Motivating the Millennials: Tapping into the potential of

the youngest generation. Leader to Leader, 62, 39-44.

Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY: Harper &

Brothers.

Thompson, C. & Gregory, J.B. (2012). Managing Millennials: A framework for

improving attraction, motivation, and retention. The Psychologist-Manager

Journal, 15, 237-246.

Toossi, M. (2013). Labor Force Projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate

continues to fall. Monthly Labor Review, 1-27.

Tuohy, D., Cooney, A., Dowling, M., Murphy, K., Sixsmith, J. (2013). An overview of

interpretive phenomenology as a research methodology. Nurse Resource,

20(6):17-20.

Twenge, J.M., Freeman, E.C. & Campbell, W. K. (2012). Generational differences in

young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966 – 2009.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1045-1062.

123

U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Millennials outnumber Baby Boomers and are far more

diverse, Census Bureau reports. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html

USAjobs.gov. (2015). What is a term appointment? Retrieved from

https://help.usajobs.gov/index.php/What_is_a_Term_Appointment%3F

US Office of Personnel Management (2015). Diversity & Inclusion

Federal Workforce AT-A-Glance. Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/policy-

data-oversight/diversity-and-inclusion/federal-workforce-at-a-glance/

Wieck, K. L., Dols, J. & Landrum, P. (2010) Retention Priorities for the Intergenerational

Nurse Workforce. Nursing Forum, 45, 7-17.

Winograd, M. & Hais, M. (2014). How Millennials could upend Wall Street and

corporate America. Brookings Education, May. 1-19.

Wright, B.E. & Grant, A.M. (2010). Unanswered questions about public service

motivation: Designing research to address key issues of emergence and effect.

Public Administration Review, 70(5), 691-700.

Yerbury, H. (2010). Who to be: Generations X and Y in civil society online. Youth

Studies Australia, 29(2), 25-32.

124

Appendix A: Introductory E-mail

Dear Potential Interviewee:

Hi, my name is Lisa Mallory and in addition to being a District of Columbia government employee, I am a doctoral student in Public Policy and Administration at Walden University (www.waldenu.edu). Our research at Walden is focused on achieving positive social change, and with that in mind, I would like to invite you to participate in my research study. I am doing a study of Millennial District Government workers to determine what factors motivate them in the public sector workplace by obtaining data from Millennials directly. My work is being supervised by a Dissertation Committee and while I have requested permission from the District of Columbia government to seek your participation, this study is not being done for the District of Columbia government, rather seeks to inform public administrators more broadly. I will also strictly adhere to several standards, namely that your participation is voluntary, entirely confidential and that your answers will not be attributable. You can terminate your participation at any time without any explanation needed. In the interest of full disclosure, I was previously a District of Columbia government employee. If this causes concern, please simply decline to participate. However, this is academic research that will not be provided to the District of Columbia government or any of its agents or assigns. You may receive a copy of the Final Dissertation if you so choose. I would ask that you participate in an up to forty five minute, preferably face-to-face interview. I know your time is valuable and I promise to ensure we work as expediently as possible. You will receive a $20 CVS Pharmacy gift card for your participation. Note: Your email response indicating your willingness to participate indicates that you understand the nature of this research and your participation is voluntary. Please respond with a YES or NO to this email. If you are also interested in receiving a final electronic copy of the dissertation please add that to your response. Thank you, Lisa Mallory Ph.D. Candidate, Walden University

125

Appendix B: Introductory Phone Call

“Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Maria Mallory and I am a doctoral student at Walden University in the School of Public Policy and Public Administration. Do you have a few minutes so I can determine your interest and availability?” If yes, proceeds as follows: “First of all, this is a confidential conversation. I am a doctoral student in Public Policy and Administration at Walden University (www.waldenu.edu). Our research at Walden is focused on achieving positive social change, and with that in mind, I would like to invite you to participate in my research study. I am doing a study of Millennial District Government workers to determine what motivates them in the public sector workplace by obtaining data from Millennials directly. My work is being supervised by a Dissertation Committee and while I have requested permission from the District of Columbia government to seek your participation, this study is not being done for the District of Columbia government, rather seeks to inform public administrators more broadly. I will also strictly adhere to several standards, namely that your participation is voluntary, confidential and that your answers will not be attributable. You can terminate your participation at any time without any explanation needed. In the interest of full disclosure, I was previously a District of Columbia government employee. If this causes concern, please simply decline to participate. However, this is academic research that will not be provided to the District of Columbia government or any of its agents or assigns. I would ask that you participate in an up to forty five minute individual, preferably face-to-face interview which will be audio recorded. I know your time is valuable and I promise to ensure we work as expediently as possible. In appreciation for your participation you will receive a $20 CVS Pharmacy gift card. You may receive a copy of your audio recording and/or a copy of my final dissertation upon request. Are you interested in participating?” If yes, proceeds as follows: “Again, the interview will be recorded. I am flexible in terms of accommodating your schedule and can either conduct the interview in a private conference room located at 455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW or at a place of your choosing that is free from distractions and allows for the audio tape. I have the following dates and times available: ______________. Please let me know where you would like to meet… Thank you so much for your time. I will follow up with a quick phone call confirming our meeting and should you need to contact me you can do so by calling [phone number].”

126

Appendix C: Script of Phone Call Requesting Participation in Interview

“Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Maria Mallory and I am a doctoral student at Walden University in the School of Public Policy and Public Administration. I am calling in reference to an email from me dated ________. Do you have a few minutes so I can determine your interest and availability?” If yes, proceeds as follows: “First of all, this is a confidential conversation. I am a doctoral student in Public Policy and Administration at Walden University (www.waldenu.edu). Our research at Walden is focused on achieving positive social change, and with that in mind, I would like to invite you to participate in my research study. I am doing a study of Millennial District Government workers to determine what motivates them in the public sector workplace by obtaining data from Millennials directly. My work is being supervised by a Dissertation Committee and while I have requested permission from the District of Columbia government to seek your participation, this study is not being done for the District of Columbia government, rather seeks to inform public administrators more broadly. I will also strictly adhere to several standards, namely that your participation is voluntary, confidential and that your answers will not be attributable. You can terminate your participation at any time without any explanation needed. In the interest of full disclosure, I was previously a District of Columbia government employee. If this causes concern, please simply decline to participate. However, this is academic research that will not be provided to the District of Columbia government or any of its agents or assigns. I would ask that you participate in an up to forty five minute individual and preferably face-to-face interview which will be audio recorded. I know your time is valuable and I promise to ensure we work as expediently as possible. In appreciation for your participation you will receive a $20 CVS Pharmacy gift card. You may receive a copy of your audio recording and/or a copy of my final dissertation upon request. Are you interested in participating?” If yes, proceeds as follows: “Again, the interview will be recorded. I am flexible in terms of accommodating your schedule and can either conduct the interview in a private conference room located at 455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW or at a place of your choosing that is free from distractions and allows for the audio tape. I have the following dates and times available: ______________. Please let me know where you would like to meet… Thank you so much for your time. I will follow up with a quick phone call confirming our meeting and should you need to contact me you can do so by calling [phone number].”

127

Appendix D: Interview Protocol

Time of Interview:

Date:

Interviewee:

Code #: (1-20)

“Hello, first I would like to thank you for participating in this interview. My name is

Lisa Maria Mallory and I am a doctoral student at Walden University in the School of

Public Policy and Public Administration. The intent of this interview today is to gather

data that will inform an academic study on the Millennial public servant. The

information collected here today is non-attributable, you will be coded using a participant

number and this discussion is in strict confidence. All materials, including audio tape and

notes, will be safeguarded in my personal office computer under lock and key and will

not be provided to the District of Columbia government. Your participation is

completely voluntary. If you are no longer willing to participate, or if you decide at any

point in time that you do not want to participate please let me know. No further

explanation is needed.

Thank you.

I am first asking for demographic data that, again, will be blinded.”

Race:

Gender:

Level of Educational Attainment:

Department:

128

Thank you. Now we will begin with the questions.

1) Do you feel that other generational cohorts in your workplace have a good

understanding of what factors motivate you and your Millennial colleagues?

2) What adjectives would you use to describe yourself as a Millennial public

servant?

3) Can you describe your accomplishments in your present position?

4) Are you routinely recognized for your work? If so, how are you recognized?

If not, how does this impact your motivation?

5) What is your opinion about the work itself?

6) What is your opinion about your level of responsibility?

7) Have you had opportunities for advancement since you were hired? If not,

does that have any impact on your motivation?

8) Do you feel that you are fairly compensated?

9) Do you feel that there is a possibility for further growth?

10) How would you rate your relationships with your subordinates? Good? Fair?

Poor? Please expand.

11) How would you rate your relationship with your superior? Good? Fair?

Poor? Please elaborate.

12) How would you rate your relationships with your peers? Good? Fair? Poor?

Please elaborate.

13) Do you feel you have the appropriate technical supervision to do your job?

14) Do you have the adequate resources to do your job?

129

15) Are you fairly satisfied with how existing policies are administered?

16) How are your working conditions? Good? Fair? Poor? Please expand.

17) Do you have work/life balance?

18) Do you feel that you have job security?

19) Is there anything further you would like to add?

“Thank you so much for your participation. I would like to provide you with this CVS

Pharmacy gift card in the amount of $20 in appreciation of your time and input. Again, if

you are interested in obtaining a copy of the Final Dissertation or your audio recording, I

will provide that to you once it has been completed.”